Vintage Rolex Sea Dweller 1665 watch " BACK FROM ROLEX

[FIB112358]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Rolex-Se...item35a7f4a33d

I wanted to bring up a few points with this watch.
First of all, I am of the opinion that the watch is be authentic and described well.

The issue I wanted to raise was the fact that, in the wording
"registered design" the "E's" have three even bars. Of late there has been alot of speculation as to the authenticity of a case based on the "E" font.
The consensus to date from what I have read has been if the the bars on the "E" are even, it is a fake case. But I believe this perhaps might not always be the true. Using this watch as an example. The reason I believe this watch is authentic is.
A. It has been serviced by RHKN and confirmed as authentic
B. The lettering and model number from what I can see are stylographed and not stamped which I believe is correct for this era.

I am not saying that all cases with even "E's" are original but I do believe that this is an example that shows the "E's" are not always the definitive decider on authenticity because in this example the lettering and numbering is stylographed and looks original and authentic. I have not seen any fake stylographed cases to date. The fake cases I have seen and been stung with have always had press/stamped lettering and numbering that is too deep and not spaced correctly for their era. Did Rolex stamp their own cases or did they use a contactor for this job, if so, this would explain the many differences. As I have known that dials and bracelets were built and constucted by other companies, could this be true with case construction or stamping?

Another interesting point is that this case appears to have lost it's serial number due to bracelet lug wear, and RHKN has still serviced it, but they have restamped the inside of the caseback with RHKN480, I assume this is it's new serial number to identify it when further servicing by a RSC is required. Does this mean thet they knew the previous original serial or did not know it and have used this new one (RHKN480) as a substitute.
I was always under the impression that if the serial number is worn an RSC will not service the watch. But this was proved to be incorrect with this example. The final point I wanted to bring up is: What of original cases that have previously lost there serial and numbers due to wear and have had them restamped by a case restorer, In my opinion they should not be viewed as fake but rather restored, How would the RSC and the collecting community view this?

Anyway I think that the case on this 1665sd is correct, but it may not be, so can we please have imput to sort this out


I am having trouble uploading pics so please go to the auction description on ebay to view the photos

[mcjp6]

Great post.

I am afraid that the only input I can give is that all but one of my Rolex have uneven bars. The one (1680) that has even bars on the "E" HAS been serviced by Rolex and if fake they did not pick it.

Looking forward to more input.

I have just re read the ebay listing and I am curious as to why when apparently undergoing a "service" at RSC HK the paper work is stamped "Not Waterproof". can anyone through any light onto this?

[idk01]

Originally Posted by mcjp6

great post.

I am afraid that the only input i can give is that all but one of my rolex have uneven bars. The one (1680) that has even bars on the "e" has been serviced by rolex and if fake they did not pick it.

Looking forward to more input.

I have just re read the ebay listing and i am curious as to why when apparently undergoing a "service" at rsc hk the paper work is stamped "not waterproof". Can anyone through any light onto this?

x2.

[onkyo]

Originally Posted by mcjp6

Great post.

I am afraid that the only input I can give is that all but one of my Rolex have uneven bars. The one (1680) that has even bars on the "E" HAS been serviced by Rolex and if fake they did not pick it.

Looking forward to more input.

I have just re read the ebay listing and I am curious as to why when apparently undergoing a "service" at RSC HK the paper work is stamped "Not Waterproof". can anyone through any light onto this?

x3 great post. The possible reason the watch is not waterproof is due to pitting and damage in the mid-case region where the caseback seal is. Most of the damage looks to be at 6 and 12 o'clock areas. See pic.

[mcjp6]

Originally Posted by onkyo

x3 great post. The possible reason the watch is not waterproof is due to pitting and damage in the mid-case region where the caseback seal is. Most of the damage looks to be at 6 and 12 o'clock areas. See pic.

Well spotted Pav...

I thought it odd because I thought that Rolex always warranted any watch that they serviced, but obviously not in the case where a customer declines one or more replacement parts.

I would be interested in any other discussion re the the uneven/even bars on the "E"'s. ie models. year etc.

[FIB112358]

One more issue,

It appears that the new serial (RHKN480) has only been stamped on the caseback and not the case ie. between the lugs @ the 6 position. I would have thought that it would be more correct for the RSC to not only stamp the caseback but also the case with the new serial. As it is more correct and common that the case presents the watches serial number and not the caseback.

As for the "E's" I agree, there needs to be more light shed on this matter. As I too have seen original vintage examples with even bar E's and I believe that they were not fake. But in the same breath, there have been many examples presented that had even bar E's and was not the original stamping. I Think this may be a difficult topic to tackle as I have seen a mix of original and authentic stylographed and press/stamped serials from the same serial era. So I am leaning towards the conclusion that the stamping of serial and model numbers was a job that was contracted out by Rolex, or there was a few options/methods that rolex had in terms of serial and model number application for their cases.

Also there is the issue that I brought up in my initial post, and that is: What of original cases who's serial and model numbers were worn (which is sometimes common with this vintage) and have had them restamped by a case restorer when the case is redone. As I remember seeing one serial number that was worn and the serial had been re etched by hand, it did not look good but it was done anyway, I cannot see any problem with preserving the serial number on the case by restamping it, as I would think it is more important to preserve the serial number on the case rather then leaving it worn out and missing, But how would a RSC veiw this?

[CaveDiver]

Overall the listing has good details. However I do not think that case back is original. Seems like Rolex used a new case back with the new SN etched by looking at the photograph.

One thing that puzzles me is the patina on hands and dial if they were replaced in 09 by Rolex.

[ParisDakarBmw]

Very interesting. I'm split on this one.

[onkyo]

Originally Posted by FIB112358

One more issue,

It appears that the new serial (RHKN480) has only been stamped on the caseback and not the case ie. between the lugs @ the 6 position. I would have thought that it would be more correct for the RSC to not only stamp the caseback but also the case with the new serial. As it is more correct and common that the case presents the watches serial number and not the caseback.

As for the "E's" I agree, there needs to be more light shed on this matter. As I too have seen original vintage examples with even bar E's and I believe that they were not fake. But in the same breath, there have been many examples presented that had even bar E's and was not the original stamping. I Think this may be a difficult topic to tackle as I have seen a mix of original and authentic stylographed and press/stamped serials from the same serial era. So I am leaning towards the conclusion that the stamping of serial and model numbers was a job that was contracted out by Rolex, or there was a few options/methods that rolex had in terms of serial and model number application for their cases.

Also there is the issue that I brought up in my initial post, and that is: What of original cases who's serial and model numbers were worn (which is sometimes common with this vintage) and have had them restamped by a case restorer when the case is redone. As I remember seeing one serial number that was worn and the serial had been re etched by hand, it did not look good but it was done anyway, I cannot see any problem with preserving the serial number on the case by restamping it, as I would think it is more important to preserve the serial number on the case rather then leaving it worn out and missing, But how would a RSC veiw this?

As far as I know, Rolex WILL service a watch when the serial is worn due to normal wear and tear. I have never heard of Rolex re-engraving the serial number in the case. This is often done by private watchmakers and it never looks correct. I also have never heard of Rolex re-issuing a new serial number (except 4.4 mil cases) but it does make sense to me since some overseas service centers still service vintage pieces.

[Orchi]

Err buddies...a case like this always give rise to doubts...

1. Seller did not post a picture of the other side of lugs which...
would show the bad Case serial nos....how bad is it?

Otherwise it would seem that the Seller may not have been transparent enough...

2. S/Nos. without being legible...RSC HK should NOT have accepted the watch for service...

The origin...authenticity...legitimacy of ownership of the watch
may be in question...(S/Nos. being rubbed off? who rubbed it off)

The watch may have no prior service records...in RSC HK.
IF there was a record...RSC should have just serviced the watch based on...
its original case serial nos....n go on with it...

Why did they have re-issue a different "S/Nos." stated in their bill...
n stamped the same inside the caseback...?

3. IF the case had been badly corroded...
normally RSC would recommend the case to be replaced...
Did RSC proceed with the due diligence...?

4. Why would the Seller still have in possession of those Used Crystal...Dial n Hands...
if they had been replaced with new ones by RSC HK...?

Normally these used parts would have been kept by RSC HK...

5. The existing Dial fitted to the watch is marked "SWISS"...
meaning it could be the Service replacement Dial with Luminova markers...

IF so...why would the the markers on Dial n Hands having the Patina effect...
whilst the Bezel Pearl(said to be replaced too as per RSC HK's bill)...
is looking brand spanking new without any Patina effect on it...?

6. Long "E" fonts stamped on the case...
amongst the "REGISTERED ROLEX DESIGN"...
is NOT consistent to those commonly found on all Rolex cases...
that Orchi has seen so far...in years.
This would give rise to the biggest doubt...

The above having been said...IF it was upto Orchi...
Orchi would remove the listing...
based on the watch giving rise to too much doubts...

[ibsober]

It is on its way to about $6k...so long sucker!

[Czechman]

I have a question... WHAT makes stainless steel corrode like that? I'm not a watchmaker but I've seen a LOT of stainless steel parts used in automobiles and industry and I can never recall seeing anything more than discoloration. Have I led a sheltered life?

Inquiring minds and all that.

[mcjp6]

Winning bid US $7,699.00......

we need to try for invalidation quickly.......

[Safetrends]

Originally Posted by Czechman

I have a question... WHAT makes stainless steel corrode like that? I'm not a watchmaker but I've seen a LOT of stainless steel parts used in automobiles and industry and I can never recall seeing anything more than discoloration. Have I led a sheltered life?

Inquiring minds and all that.

I have seen, with United States Seal Team, stationed next to the beach, stainless steel changing color/corrode like that from the salt water air, sand, sweat, etc, and when aluminum corrodes it will leave blisters.

[mcjp6]

Originally Posted by Orchi

6. Long "E" fonts stamped on the case...
amongst the "REGISTERED ROLEX DESIGN"...
is NOT consistent to those commonly found on all Rolex cases...
that Orchi has seen so far...in years.
This would give rise to the biggest doubt...

so, in other words, and in your opinion if a case has long "E" fonts stamped on the case then the case, at least, is fake???

[Orchi]

Originally Posted by mcjp6

so, in other words, and in your opinion if a case has long "E" fonts stamped on the case then the case, at least, is fake???

Err buddy Michael...perhaps better if Orchi explains it in another manner...

1. MOST FAKEEE watch cases...
or those being tampered with...
(on original Rolex case but tampered stamping)
are seen with the long "E"...
as well as with those other obvious inconsistency...
of the watch case stamping fonts...

2. ALL Rolex original watch cases...
that Orchi has observed so far...
do NOT have this long "E"...

But there may be other individual(s) who might dispute this...

[Johny]

bad arc welding ??

[TheBluePrince]

Originally Posted by Orchi

Err buddies...a case like this always give rise to doubts...

1. Seller did not post a picture of the other side of lugs which...
would show the bad Case serial nos....how bad is it?

I would guess it is as bad as the side we can see - all worn down and unreadable.

Otherwise it would seem that the Seller may not have been transparent enough...

2. S/Nos. without being legible...RSC HK should NOT have accepted the watch for service...

The origin...authenticity...legitimacy of ownership of the watch
may be in question...(S/Nos. being rubbed off? who rubbed it off)

The watch may have no prior service records...in RSC HK.
IF there was a record...RSC should have just serviced the watch based on...
its original case serial nos....n go on with it...

Why did they have re-issue a different "S/Nos." stated in their bill...
n stamped the same inside the caseback...?

They obviously did accept it. Each centre makes it's own decisions whether to work on a piece. Numbers are clearly not rubbed off but worn down, in common with the rest of the case - very worn. When a RSC gets a watch that they have authenticated but that has no readable serial numbers they give it a new serial issued by that service centre which has happened here. Any future RSC working on it can then save a lot of time by contacting the RSC that issued the new number, and maybe the details are on a database too.

3. IF the case had been badly corroded...
normally RSC would recommend the case to be replaced...
Did RSC proceed with the due diligence...?

They obviously felt that stating "not waterproof" was diligent enough in this case.

4. Why would the Seller still have in possession of those Used Crystal...Dial n Hands...
if they had been replaced with new ones by RSC HK...?

Normally these used parts would have been kept by RSC HK...

Normally they are but sometimes they are not, depends on the RSC and if the watch is personally delivered and collected or mailed back to a dealer.

5. The existing Dial fitted to the watch is marked "SWISS"...
meaning it could be the Service replacement Dial with Luminova markers...

IF so...why would the the markers on Dial n Hands having the Patina effect...
whilst the Bezel Pearl(said to be replaced too as per RSC HK's bill)...
is looking brand spanking new without any Patina effect on it...?

Dial is marked Swiss because it's a replacement of a Tritum dial. These replacements have the same colour as patina'd Tritium but the markers are actually just coloured markings - no luminous material at all. Same for hands. The pearl is obviously a modern one.

6. Long "E" fonts stamped on the case...
amongst the "REGISTERED ROLEX DESIGN"...
is NOT consistent to those commonly found on all Rolex cases...
that Orchi has seen so far...in years.
This would give rise to the biggest doubt...

It's not common but did happen. Standards many years ago were not what they are now and inconsistancies occured often.

The above having been said...IF it was upto Orchi...
Orchi would remove the listing...
based on the watch giving rise to too much doubts...

All doubts now answered and removed

[FIB112358]

Originally Posted by TheBluePrince

[COLOR="Red"]

Dial is marked Swiss because it's a replacement of a Tritum dial. These replacements have the same colour as patina'd Tritium but the markers are actually just coloured markings - no luminous material at all. Same for hands. The pearl is obviously a modern one.

I am not so sure about the theory that you have on the replacement dial. As far as I am aware, the 1665 service dial marked single "swiss" comes only in "luminova" and not patina coloured tritium, from what I have seen anyway!
I gather the same is true with the hands.

Does anyone have any more input on the even bar "E's" and the circular dots at the end of each bar???

[mcjp6]

Originally Posted by Orchi

2. ALL Rolex original watch cases...
that Orchi has observed so far...
do NOT have this long "E"...

Good enough for me....thank you.......

[TheBluePrince]

Originally Posted by FIB112358

I am not so sure about the theory that you have on the replacement dial. As far as I am aware, the 1665 service dial marked single "swiss" comes only in "luminova" and not patina coloured tritium, from what I have seen anyway!
I gather the same is true with the hands.

Does anyone have any more input on the even bar "E's" and the circular dots at the end of each bar???

I will look into this further over the weekend if i have time. I thought and have been told that the Tritium service replacement dials were not illuminised in some cases. As they cannot use Tritium anymore they use a coloured material for the plots that remsmbles Tritium but is not luminescent.

[Orchi]

Originally Posted by TheBluePrince

I thought and have been told that the Tritium service replacement dials were not illuminised in some cases. As they cannot use Tritium anymore they use a coloured material for the plots that remsmbles Tritium but is not luminescent.

Err buddy...IF your source of information was correct...
it would NOT be called a Tritium service replacement Dial...
or were you referring to which type of marking on these so called "Tritium" Service Replacement Dial...
under the 6 o'clock marker...?

Was it...

1. "SWISS"...?

or

2. "SWISS-T<25"...?

This particular gentleman Buddy who is widely recognized...
as one of the most accredited vintage Rolex watch collector/writer...
has done extensive research...
into this similar topic...

n this is what he wrote n published...

http://www.doubleredseadweller.com/r...20re%20sub.htm

"The Replacement Dial from Rolex for the Red Submariner by Delgado

Rolex has responded to collectors requests by sometimes replacing their tired old red dials with a newer red dial.

The font is slightly different but the main difference is that the markers contain luminova and will glow bright green in the dark.

The most noticeable difference is that the dial is also labeled as "SWISS" at the bottom but some also have "T SWISS <25".

Photo courtesy of M. Reitzel"






"Recently Rolex has been replacing some of the DRSD dials with this newer version. The Mark VI

The dial has luminova markers and what is interesting is that it looks exactly like a replacement white SD dial but the word "SEADWELLER" has been painted over with red paint. You be the judge..

Photos by Addict"




So Buddy...as you can see...
ALL Modern RSC service replacement Dial...
are either marked with "SWISS" or "SWISS-T<25"...
The markers on these Dials containe LUMINOVA...
They are all LUMINOUS in the dark...

n MOST of all...they DON'T develop the PATINA effect...
like the one in eBay...

SAME SAME with the Service Replacement HANDS...
containing LUMINOVA...

But you were correct to say...
the markers on Dial n Hands...
do NOT contain Tritium...

So it should NOT be referred to as being Tritium Service replacement Dial...

Coming back to the one listed in eBay...
on this so claimed by the eBay Seller:

"Dial & Hands : Original dial changed by Rolex service center ( we also including the old dial and hands )"

Here is the Newer RSC Replaced Dial





Here's the one said to be the OLD one...




BOTH of these Dials might have been tampered with...
The Newer Dial markers tampered with to add the "PATINA" effect...

n the OLDER Dial was RELUMED...!!!


Here is perhaps the worst part...

eBay's photos:









Orchi notices hairline cracks between the lugs...
easily seen from the backcase...(with backcase cover taken off)...

These cracks could have been the result of "heat stress"...caused by excessive heat during welding...

Somebody could have tried to patch up the previous corrosion spots between the lugs...
by spot welding or soldering...

Case could have been then re-stamped...found to be with incorrect fonts...
n rubbed of to make the stamping looking...USED n FADED...

[Orchi]

Originally Posted by Johny

bad arc welding ??

Err buddy Johny...BIIIIIINNNGGGO...!

[FIB112358]

Buddy Orchi can you please suggest in what order would these alterations may have taken place?????

First ...I assume that the dial and hands were altered with the patina effect post service...I think thats the easy one to work out.

What about the re-stamping??? will rolex service a watch that has been restamped????
But wait a minute...if your going to restamp the case yourself as you suggest this is what has happened, why not re-stamp the serial# also???

With all that damage to the case would not Rolex HKN just replace the case at service as you stated earlier Buddy Orchi....I mean, I am always hearing how rolex will insist that the watch is returned to the customer in as new and original condition as possible, I could hardly imagine they would let this botched case slip through, How could they provide a service guarantee with the case in this state or is this just the way RHKN does buisness...Could the case repair welding job have been done post service? Do you think perhaps the watch was never serviced by RHKN????? I mean I would have really thought that if Rolex was going to issue a new serial number to a watch that they would stamp it between the lugs on the case as a priority not just on the caseback as is shown in the item description, either way, who ever bought this 1665 could have better spent their 8k elsewhere. Come on ,for an extra 1-2k they could have bought a spankin 1665, there is no shortage on ebay...

[TheBluePrince]

When i said (and what i think the seller means) Tritium replacement dial i meant a replacement of a Tritium dial, not a new Tritum dial. As I understand these no lume dials were available from RSC's for a time once. I have been told this by two sources. Maybe HK RSC had some left? The handset would of course match this dial.

I think we need to decide (or people need to specify which they believe) whether this watch has or has not been serviced by HK RSC. If it has not then we can't believe anything the seller says and the watch is likely a bad one. If it has been then people need to be clear about what they are saying has happened to this watch, and what HK RSC has or has not done to it or what was done to it after service. If HK RSC's workmanship and service is being called into question then this is a very serious allegation.

I belive it was serviced and repaired by HK RSC. Why? Well the receipt could of course be faked (but it does look very real) but the new serial is the clincher imo. It would be easy to refer to this new serial from HK RSC and if it was bogus then this would be easily called out and shown up with a little checking. All the details and info needed to check up on this watch with HK RSC are right there.

Now if the new dial was changed/altered after it left HK RSC then why? If the owner wanted a patina'd dial he could have left the old one on. It was in good conditon. Paying a lot to have it serviced and changed and then butchering it yourself to make it look old when you already had an old looking dial before just does not make sense at all. It is far more likely that the dial came like that from HK RSC. Seller gains nothing by altering it. If it came with luminova plots then he would have left it like that and by including the old dial too like he is would have been able to offer both looks.

[mcjp6]

This one is back again......

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Rolex-Se...ht_18267wt_958

[mcjp6]

Dave, we might need your fingerlonger here...............

[Jackxv]

People,

I clearly follow Orchi his opinion, no long E untill proven.

A lot of the counterfeit and "serviced" watches lately seen came with these RSC HK papers.

Also another specimen could've been serviced and the watch changed except the caseback.

I don't believe it.

Jack

[Johny]

Originally Posted by Orchi

Err buddy Johny...BIIIIIINNNGGGO...!

hi orchi i keep seeing stray arching and bad arc strikes.maybe even undercut .file marks going the wrong way. varying metal thickness. it does not look anything like corrosion and is confined to the vital areas. i would love to see the x rays. johny.

[bayerische]

Very interesting thread!

The wear on the serial looks strange to say the least.