Odd Oyster Perpetual Date on Auction

[Edward Pellew]

Today I noticed an odd Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date on a major auction site and I would appreciate opinions.

The watch is essentially a bog standard Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date, Ref. 15223, from around 1997. It is complete with boxes and papers, and is allegedly all original.

My concern is that as a factory two-tone, it should have the gold bezel, gold crown and gold bracelet elements, but the auction watch features an all steel Jubilee, which seems wrong to me.

The seller claims corporate award watches come this way, but I’ve never heard of any Rolex leaving Switzerland in anything other than standard form.

Has the dealer who sold the watch as an award swapped bracelets to make few bucks on the more expensive two-tone Jubilee?

I fear the ‘all original’ description may be a little wide of the mark.

Thank you.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Edward Pellew

Today I noticed an odd Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date on a major auction site and I would appreciate opinions.

The watch is essentially a bog standard Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date, Ref. 15223, from around 1997. It is complete with boxes and papers, and is allegedly all original.

My concern is that as a factory two-tone, it should have the gold bezel, gold crown and gold bracelet elements, but the auction watch features an all steel Jubilee, which seems wrong to me.

The seller claims corporate award watches come this way, but I’ve never heard of any Rolex leaving Switzerland in anything other than standard form.

Has the dealer who sold the watch as an award swapped bracelets to make few bucks on the more expensive two-tone Jubilee?

I fear the ‘all original’ description may be a little wide of the mark.

Thank you.

Post a link or at least a photo!

[Edward Pellew]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Post a link or at least a photo!

I am unable to post a link until I have ten posts: eBay item number: 274610794423

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Edward Pellew

I am unable to post a link until I have ten posts: eBay item number: 274610794423

OK, I'm not too certain about the bracelet matching the rest of the watch but I can tell you it's way overpriced imho. That's in new OP range. I'd expect a TT bracelet as well. I guess it could be original but not a great match. Used to be you could pick and choose bracelets.

[Edward Pellew]

I have always been under the impression that the model number told the basics about the watch.

15223 should be a two-tone OP Date on a two-tone bracelet.

I have this model and it came on the 18K/steel Oyster. Dials will surely vary, but a two-tone should always be a two-tone.

[jimcameron]

Buy your first Rolex from an AD. It's a jungle out there filled with predators just waiting for some fawn to come along to be ripped to shreds.

[Edward Pellew]

Originally Posted by jimcameron

Buy your first Rolex from an AD. It's a jungle out there filled with predators just waiting for some fawn to come along to be ripped to shreds.

I am unclear on what your comment has to do with this thread.

Over the years, I have owned more than fifty Rolexes of different sorts.

I just found the auction watch to be odd.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by jimcameron

Buy your first Rolex from an AD. It's a jungle out there filled with predators just waiting for some fawn to come along to be ripped to shreds.

Let me know how you go buying a 15223 from an AD Jimbo.

[77T]

Some owner along the way must have damaged the original bracelet and couldn’t afford to replace it with the authentic TT bracelet. Or Birks gladly swapped the TT original one for SS at point of sale back in 1991.

It’s not an award watch since it was purchased per the description.

That’s my only explanation for the state that it is in now. Of course, don’t buy it.

But if you want a head only deal make an offer and tell seller to keep the bracelet. Otherwise it’s an expensive project to get an era correct TT Jubilee in decent shape.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Edward Pellew]

. . . because, as I stated before, I already own a 15223 on the two-tone Oyster.

My watch has the much prettier gloss white / black Roman numeral / gold hour block dial, but I do monitor the market for the watch through a standing auction search.

I’d thought about peddling my watch and buying a new 39mm Oyster Perpetual, but with dealers freezing their waiting lists, I decided I’d hold mine a bit longer . . .

[dannyp]

I have seen older Rolexes that are all-steel but with YG bezel/crown. However the one I recall was a ladies' model on Oyster.

What seems odd is to have such a complete set, that close to being "unworn" but without having the original bracelet. Makes me think perhaps there was a bracelet swap at time of purchase? Either way, the paperwork that comes with it should tell all, no?

And, while that price seems crazy, and I don't like the style of stainless Jubilee with gold dial, bezel and crown, it would look very nice on leather.

[Edward Pellew]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I have seen older Rolexes that are all-steel but with YG bezel/crown. However the one I recall was a ladies' model on Oyster.

What seems odd is to have such a complete set, that close to being "unworn" but without having the original bracelet. Makes me think perhaps there was a bracelet swap at time of purchase? Either way, the paperwork that comes with it should tell all, no?

And, while that price seems crazy, and I don't like the style of stainless Jubilee with gold dial, bezel and crown, it would look very nice on leather.

I’ve suggested to the seller that the bracelet information might be with the paperwork, but I never heard from him again after he (mistakenly) told me it was an award watch that came with the steel Jubilee.

My biggest concern is less that the seller is being intentionally dishonest, but more so, I’d worry that a novice might buy the watch, not knowing the bracelet is, as far as I can tell, incorrect.

To pay full whack and get an incorrect bracelet would be very expensive. Further, if the buyer didn’t learn he’d gotten the fuzzy end of the stick until he went to sell it or get it appraised for insurance, he’d no longer have recourse through eBay.

[powerfunk]

Yeah that doesn't look right to me. On some old two-tone watches like the 5701, a steel bracelet was a legitimate option, but it would be news to me if that happened on 5-digit models.

[Edward Pellew]

From what I’ve seen, the seller is not interested in answering questions, and he is content to leave the listing as-is, even with his description in question.

If I am not mistaken, Rolex could tell how the watch was produced with just the serial number and the model number, but the seller does not seem to be forthcoming.

I just hope nobody bids on it because they cannot be warned in any way.

[LonghornBBA16]

I have a 1979 1505 in TT, but with a SS bracelet. The bracelet was almost 100% added aftermarket in my case though...

[rmagoo57]

I see 65 15223's for sale on chrono24 -- ZERO have a SS bracelet.

[Edward Pellew]

Originally Posted by rmagoo57

I see 65 15223's for sale on chrono24 -- ZERO have a SS bracelet.

Thank you for going to the effort of proving my point.

I have brought the auction to the attention of a friend who knows about such things, and he is going to contact eBay.

Removed by eBay.

[dannyp]

Come to think about it, is it possible it changed hands an additional time (and therefore was an award watch originally)? The "Birks Watches and Clocks Guarantee" suggests that someone other than Rolex was warranting the watch, suggesting second-hand purchase? Or am I reading too much in?

[Edward Pellew]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Come to think about it, is it possible it changed hands an additional time (and therefore was an award watch originally)? The "Birks Watches and Clocks Guarantee" suggests that someone other than Rolex was warranting the watch, suggesting second-hand purchase? Or am I reading too much in?

I think you make a very good point.

The watch is twenty years old, with paperwork from Birks, and an incorrect bracelet.

The seller said it had only been worn about ten times, but he also said he was not a watch expert.

In twenty years the original bracelet could very likely have been worn out as the older steel/gold bracelets had issues with stretching.

I think the seller would’ve said just about anything to make the watch sound nicer than it really was, and that might’ve also been why he was so dismissive.

[dannyp]

More like 30... think it referenced 91.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Edward Pellew

I just hope nobody bids on it because they cannot be warned in any way.

If that’s the main focus then you can report it to eBay as a violation of listing practices - false description.

To get more help on that score, the best way is post your concern along with a link to the auction in WatchOut section of TRF.

Many there have had success removing such auctions via concerted efforts. While this isn’t a fake necessarily it is posing as an original and clearly not so.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Edward Pellew]

Originally Posted by 77T

If that’s the main focus then you can report it to eBay as a violation of listing practices - false description.

To get more help on that score, the best way is post your concern along with a link to the auction in WatchOut section of TRF.

Many there have had success removing such auctions via concerted efforts. While this isn’t a fake necessarily it is posing as an original and clearly not so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It was removed about three hours ago. I know a guy who can get these things sorted.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Edward Pellew

It was removed about three hours ago. I know a guy who can get these things sorted.

Glad to hear it, didn’t know so shared that in spirit of TRF teamwork.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Nikrnic]

It must be an added bracelet.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[rootbeer7]

It’s an original bracelet, but certainly not original to that watch.

[VonSomething]

Originally Posted by Edward Pellew

Thank you for going to the effort of proving my point.

I have brought the auction to the attention of a friend who knows about such things, and he is going to contact eBay.

Removed by eBay.

Why was it reported and removed? To my knowledge it has all original parts. Just because they are not reference correct, they are still original?

Not that I in any way am affiliated with the seller or this listing, I just found it odd that this was a reason to report it?

To me that would be like reporting a car-listing because it the hood and trunk had been replaced (from same car model, but different colour).

(EDIT: Never mind! Just read the other replies that the listing had false information in it. Missed that one)