Help - 1655 Dial Question ~ Did I make a bad purchase?

[SC1966]

Originally Posted by Tavli3

So your the 4th watch, that we know of. How many don't we know of.

Sounds like MB operates by the catch me if you can mantra.

Not cool by any means as he is or was regarded as a reputable dealer.

He may be knowledgeable but reputable is a big question mark in my book.



And I don't buy the excuse that it slipped by him. His name is on the store front, he should make sure he or his people don't put this type of stuff up for sale without proper disclosure.



Issuing refunds don't make it 100% right either. It just makes it that he's not an outright crook.

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Elle84]

Yes as already said 5.5 is too late for this configuration.

I have a 1655 Mk2 with 2.73 serial. (maybe a early example or swapped to a mk1)

You are lucky because the mk1 is pretty rare and can find someone who will swap the dial, also it looks not relumed to me

[GrandCanyon]

I believe the OP should contact the seller and demand a refund, the seller seams to have a decent reputation. As the original owner of 1981 16750, my question to serious collectors: are most of the 'original' vintage watches offered for sale these days basically safe queens or watches that were infrequently worn by their owner(s)? The reason I ask is, I wore my watch almost every day for 36 years and through normal wear and tear, the bezel, hands and dial essentially wore out which rendered the watch almost useless as a time piece. So I had the watch serviced to maintain its function. Based on my experience most watches from that era have changes made to them. Anyway, no offense to anyone, I don't know how these sellers can claim originality without all of the original paperwork including service records.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by GrandCanyon

I believe the OP should contact the seller and demand a refund, the seller seams to have a decent reputation.

In post #23, the OP indicated that the seller has satisfied him.

[GrandCanyon]

Originally Posted by Dan S

In post #23, the OP indicated that the seller has satisfied him.

Thanks Dan, I didn't see that.

[pierson]

Would it be smart for me to buy this case so that, I think, the serial, bezel, mk1 face and straight second hands all match?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/14341732152...&ul_noapp=true

[subx]

Originally Posted by pierson

Would it be smart for me to buy this case so that, I think, the serial, bezel, mk1 face and straight second hands all match?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/14341732152...&ul_noapp=true

you got away from a bad situation, and you want to get in another one?
:)

[pierson]

Originally Posted by rom

you got away from a bad situation, and you want to get in another one?
:)

I ended up keeping the watch. All good with seller

Just curious if this play would make sense.

[Verdi]

Originally Posted by GrandCanyon

I believe the OP should contact the seller and demand a refund, the seller seams to have a decent reputation. As the original owner of 1981 16750, my question to serious collectors: are most of the 'original' vintage watches offered for sale these days basically safe queens or watches that were infrequently worn by their owner(s)? The reason I ask is, I wore my watch almost every day for 36 years and through normal wear and tear, the bezel, hands and dial essentially wore out which rendered the watch almost useless as a time piece. So I had the watch serviced to maintain its function. Based on my experience most watches from that era have changes made to them. Anyway, no offense to anyone, I don't know how these sellers can claim originality without all of the original paperwork including service records.

You have a very valid point!
Very hard to have a mint condition vintage piece that has seen decades of normal wear. Unless stored for years, a 40yr old watch is expected to go for service and some parts to be changed. Especially with old lume materials which would crumble over the years.

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by pierson

I ended up keeping the watch. All good with seller

Just curious if this play would make sense.

Not to me it wouldn’t. What would buying a different case do? It just puts you out of more money, and the watch still isn’t original. A watch is original once, and that ship has sailed with this. You said the seller made it right, so assuming he gave you a partial refund, now if you are happy, just enjoy wearing the watch. It isn’t going to be more than it is now unless someone were to cobble something together then sell it dishonestly. This is why I mostly admire vintage from afar....I like my old 1803, but the vintage sports stuff is too crazy, unless you have absolute provenance.

[pierson]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Not to me it wouldn’t. What would buying a different case do? It just puts you out of more money, and the watch still isn’t original. A watch is original once, and that ship has sailed with this. You said the seller made it right, so assuming he gave you a partial refund, now if you are happy, just enjoy wearing the watch. It isn’t going to be more than it is now unless someone were to cobble something together then sell it dishonestly. This is why I mostly admire vintage from afar....I like my old 1803, but the vintage sports stuff is too crazy, unless you have absolute provenance.

I really appreciate the thought/help!

[offrdmania]

Another one of Bains watches just came up with a fake bracelet on it

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=705384

[joli160]

I would never buy anything from Bains. An expert selling all this franken pieces

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by enginerd

"you're"

Case in point.

[pierson]

Can someone confirm which bezel this is. I know it was mentioned MK2, but looks like the print is pretty close to the inside, which would be MK1, right?

[1665fan]

People like this are killing the vintage market

[pierson]

Originally Posted by 1665fan

People like this are killing the vintage market

Because I bought a Frankenstein watch and am trying to figure out exactly what is what?

[watch-guy.com]

Originally Posted by pierson

Because I bought a Frankenstein watch and am trying to figure out exactly what is what?

i dont think the poster is referring to you

[pierson]

Originally Posted by watch-guy.com

i dont think the poster is referring to you

🙂

[1665fan]

I was referring to MB, sorry about the mix up

[pierson]

Originally Posted by 1665fan

i was referring to mb, sorry about the mix up

❤️

[Gopher1]

Yes, I am resurrecting an old thread, but isn't the 1655 worth it?

I have been researching the 1655 for some time now and have learned a lot from this community. Thank you! In the interest of continuous learning, I have a question on the OP's watch: Nobody called out the bezel. It looks to my (still-learning) eyes to be a clear fake. I have encountered what I believe to be many fake bezels (most sellers are out of Italy). The one on this watch seems to be one of these. In most fakes they erroneously mix elements from the various different genuine versions.

Below are the reasons I am questioning it:
1. Numbers are not close enough to inside edge (consistently) to be a Mk1
2. Numbers are too close to inside edge to be a Mk2
3. Numbers are too close to inside edge to be a Mk 3 (especially 8)
4. Numbers are too thick to be a Mk4 or Mk5

Furthermore, overall the bezel has too many inconsistencies to convince me it is genuine Rolex -- spacing of numbers relative to inside/outside edges, lettering quality (see 20), rounded inside edge at 8 (edge should be straight all the way around), placement of lines between numbers (lines between 4/6 and 6/8 are so close to inside edge the edge bows out like at 8 position).

In my search for my own 1655 I have evaluated many for sale and sold that I believe had fake bezels passed off as genuine/original Rolex. I have found bezels most difficult to assess out of the external parts (dial, hands, case).

Very interested in experts' views on my analysis.

[TuRo]

Broadly I'm always nervous when a 'reverse upgrade' happens - namely a more valueable dial and handset from an earlier incarnation shows up in a later case - the other way round fine as a later service dial etc - but it very odd say when eg when a gilt dial 63 sub dial is found in an early 70s 5513 case...it doesn't make a lot of sense / begs questions.

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by Gopher1

Yes, I am resurrecting an old thread, but isn't the 1655 worth it?

I have been researching the 1655 for some time now and have learned a lot from this community. Thank you! In the interest of continuous learning, I have a question on the OP's watch: Nobody called out the bezel. It looks to my (still-learning) eyes to be a clear fake. I have encountered what I believe to be many fake bezels (most sellers are out of Italy). The one on this watch seems to be one of these. In most fakes they erroneously mix elements from the various different genuine versions.

Below are the reasons I am questioning it:
1. Numbers are not close enough to inside edge (consistently) to be a Mk1
2. Numbers are too close to inside edge to be a Mk2
3. Numbers are too close to inside edge to be a Mk 3 (especially 8)
4. Numbers are too thick to be a Mk4 or Mk5

Furthermore, overall the bezel has too many inconsistencies to convince me it is genuine Rolex -- spacing of numbers relative to inside/outside edges, lettering quality (see 20), rounded inside edge at 8 (edge should be straight all the way around), placement of lines between numbers (lines between 4/6 and 6/8 are so close to inside edge the edge bows out like at 8 position).

In my search for my own 1655 I have evaluated many for sale and sold that I believe had fake bezels passed off as genuine/original Rolex. I have found bezels most difficult to assess out of the external parts (dial, hands, case).

Very interested in experts' views on my analysis.

I'm not an 'expert' that's for sure, but I tend to concur about your bezel notes, based on my copious (but tbh all over the place) notes, previous 1655 dealings, and a trawl through a bunch f.s. on C24 from the trustworthy sellers.

[Gopher1]

Originally Posted by TuRo

I'm not an 'expert' that's for sure, but I tend to concur about your bezel notes, based on my copious (but tbh all over the place) notes, previous 1655 dealings, and a trawl through a bunch f.s. on C24 from the trustworthy sellers.

Thanks, TuRo. It seems likely to me that most bezels have been replaced over the years given the wear and tear they take from even normal use. Given the scarcity of genuine bezels, it is logical to conclude that many out there are not genuine Rolex bezels, even if they appear so at first. The bezel differences can be subtle.