Fake 16750?

[tuffness9999]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rolex-GMT-M...MAAOSwmZVc8Ds-

Quality of photos are horrendous, handstack seems to be wrong and just looks super sketch overall.

What say you?




Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Gtecko]

Is this even a real request??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crazymcmichael]

Originally Posted by Gtecko

Is this even a real request??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gtecko]

I mean what a waste of anyone time really...

[antrolexsub]

Believe it or not it’s a genuine 16750. Aftermarket insert and aftermarket or overpolished plexi but it’s real.

I had one come in a while back with an over polished crystal that looked exactly the same on the date magnification:

[Gtecko]

what happened to the cyclops ?

[antrolexsub]

It’s plexi so someone had polished the scratches from it. Less material on the cyclops = lower magnification.

[Gtecko]

yours may be real but the OP reference is fake ... the handstack is wrong, dial is fishi, the glass isnt that polish, insert is wrong, crown looks small... its junk

[Noonan]

Those lume plots look tall enough to touch the crystal.

[Gtecko]

Originally Posted by Noonan

Those lume plots look tall enough to touch the crystal.

they are rare "buttons" lumes, from the 80's ... its real !

[antrolexsub]

Originally Posted by Gtecko

yours may be real but the OP reference is fake ... the handstack is wrong, dial is fishi, the glass isnt that polish, insert is wrong, crown looks small... its junk

Mine is real.

The eBay watch is real. I can’t be bothered to go into details tonight I don’t have the time.

Yes the insert is aftermarket/fake as maybe the crystal. The case, dial (re-lumed but real), hands and bracelet are genuine.

Crown is fine. 6mm on a GMT.

[antrolexsub]

Oh and the hand stack is fine. Above the hour hand where it should be.

[Gtecko]

Originally Posted by antrolexsub

Oh and the hand stack is fine. Above the hour hand where it should be.

looks above the minute hand ... cant really tell from the crappy pics.
thanks for sharing about the cyclops though - it does still look fishy

[antrolexsub]

Agreed, it’s rough. The fake insert and poor magnification alone throw most people off.

The hand stack is good. Crap pictures you’re right but you can just about make it out on a blown up image.

Not a bad thing for me if everyone thinks it’s fake. Less bids to compete against :)

Thanks for sharing OP.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by Gtecko

yours may be real but the OP reference is fake ... the handstack is wrong, dial is fishi, the glass isnt that polish, insert is wrong, crown looks small... its junk

Handstack for 16750 is CORRECT

Watch is genuine!

[Gtecko]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

Handstack for 16750 is CORRECT



Watch is genuine!

Funny how you always ask for the movement pictures but this is a shitty ebay picture and you are all over how it is genuine... smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by Gtecko

Funny how you always ask for the movement pictures but this is a shitty ebay picture and you are all over how it is genuine... smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not funny at all.
Hand stack for that model is sufficient
Regards

[ttnpb]

Originally Posted by Gtecko

Funny how you always ask for the movement pictures but this is a shitty ebay picture and you are all over how it is genuine... smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You clearly don’t know much.


The watch is in terrible shape, crystal and insert both look aftermarket.


Watch appears genuine. I would love for you to show me a correct hand stack 167xx watch. It’s really all you need to authenticate the majority of GMT watches.

[Gtecko]

Originally Posted by ttnpb

You clearly don’t know much.

Thanks for that comment

Originally Posted by ttnpb

Watch appears genuine. I would love for you to show me a correct hand stack 167xx watch. It’s really all you need to authenticate the majority of GMT watches.

here it is *proper hand stack* , doesnt always mean authentic.

I will let you be the judge:

[Noonan]

Originally Posted by ttnpb

Watch appears genuine. I would love for you to show me a correct hand stack 167xx watch. It’s really all you need to authenticate the majority of GMT watches.

That is horribly inaccurate info. There have been correct hand stack fakes for YEARS.

[Gtecko]

Originally Posted by Noonan

That is horribly inaccurate info. There have been correct hand stack fakes for YEARS.

Thank you ! there are SO many replicas that are done with the right hand stack ...

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by Gtecko

Thanks for that comment



here it is *proper hand stack* , doesnt always mean authentic.

I will let you be the judge:

The watch OP is discussing is a 16750 - a GMT MASTER , not the GMT II you photo shows.
The 16750 was FIRST model to have handstack with GMT in middle, the previous 1675 did NOT.

The OPs watch is correct and genuine

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by Gtecko

Thank you ! there are SO many replicas that are done with the right hand stack ...

Correct hand stack fakes were introduced about 16 months ago, and are used in all modern model (fakes)

I never saw one retro fitted from 16750 model of 1981-88

[Gtecko]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

The watch OP is discussing is a 16750 - a GMT MASTER , not the GMT II you photo shows.
The 16750 was FIRST model to have handstack with GMT in middle, the previous 1675 did NOT. The OPs watch is correct and genuine

my post wasn't directed at you ... hence the quotation mark ...
@ttnpb asked for right hand stack on a 167xx and I have provided that.

[Noonan]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

Correct hand stack fakes were introduced about 16 months ago, and are used in all modern model (fakes)

This is also horribly inaccurate info. I'm not going to post details but I promise, they have been around for at least 5+ years.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by Noonan

This is also horribly inaccurate info. I'm not going to post details but I promise, they have been around for at least 5+ years.

Really, 5+ years? Counterfeits with correct hand stack??
Which movement were they using?

[Noonan]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

Really? Counterfeits with correct hand stack??
Which movement were they using?

Oh yeah. Won't post which ETA was the base but they were modified to work as needed. Same way fakes modify movements to get the correct sub dial layout in Daytonas.


When I first got into Rolex (actually buying rather than drooling over) I was very scared about getting a fake so I did my homework (I even remember asking a very trusted seller here if they'd take the back off a BNIB model so I could verify the movement. lol)

[Gtecko]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

Really, 5+ years? Counterfeits with correct hand stack??
Which movement were they using?

100% .. I would say 10 years even !

we cant talk about fakes here... you , of all people, keep preaching about this all the time.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by Noonan

Oh yeah. Won't post which ETA was the base but they were modified to work as needed. Same way fakes modify movements to get the correct sub dial layout in Daytonas.

I dont think so. The functioning 4130 layout DAYTONA movements do not and have NEVER used an ETA movement
There is no ETA GMT movement with hand stack as ROLEX do.

As I mentioned the first fake correct hand stacks use a modified Asian movement launched around January 2018

thereafter I am out of this FAKE discussion

[Noonan]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

I dont think so. The functioning 4130 layout DAYTONA movements do not and have NEVER used an ETA movement
There is no ETA GMT movement with hand stack as ROLEX do.

I never said the Daytonas were using an ETA movement and I also didn't say the ETA movements being used in the GMT were stock/unmodified.