|
|
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
11 September 2012, 06:30 AM
|
#1 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PNW
Posts: 45
|
Original Fat Font Insert
Hello All - just curious, does this super fat font insert look legit? Supposedly it is original, but the 3 looks a bit too slinky to me. Opinions welcomed. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
11 September 2012, 06:33 AM
|
#2 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 12,485
|
that looks off to me
__________________
Fine Quality is Long Remembered After the Pain of Spending Money is Forgotten |
|
|
|
|
11 September 2012, 06:52 AM
|
#3 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Up a tree
Posts: 4,001
|
I'm not expert but it looks like a fake to me...
|
|
|
|
|
11 September 2012, 08:18 AM
|
#4 | |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Jeremy
Location: Louisiana
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 2,732
|
Quote:
have any other pics (without flash)?
__________________
As a man is, so he sees. As the eye is formed, such are its powers. William Blake |
|
|
|
|
|
11 September 2012, 09:49 AM
|
#5 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston
Posts: 3,177
|
Off to me as well - something about the paint of the numbers.
__________________
"Oh, you give a f****' aspirin a headache, pal!" |
|
|
|
|
11 September 2012, 10:29 AM
|
#6 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Rich
Location: NC
Watch: Rolex 1675
Posts: 2,359
|
Looks fake. Too fat
__________________
Rich Member of Nylon Nation Red Sox Nation Instagram watchguy97 |
|
|
|
|
11 September 2012, 01:38 PM
|
#7 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Real Name: Nikos
Location: Florida
Watch: Rolex GMT 16750
Posts: 8,418
|
I need a better pic to be 100% but to me looks like a late 50's early 60's kissing 40 fat font insert. BTW Most people have mid font confused with fat font these days.
Here is an example of a late 50's early 60's Fat Font  
__________________
Follow Me On Instagram @nickgogas Original Owner ROLEX 16750 GMT Daily Wearer For Over 13,000 Days And Counting 
|
|
|
|
|
11 September 2012, 10:30 PM
|
#8 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PNW
Posts: 45
|
Thanks for the responses. Wish I had better pics without flash. This is a watch being sold, dare I say, over on ebay. Here are more pics. Greekbum, thanks for your pics. The number that concerns me is 3, as your pic seems to show a straight edge at the bottom of 3, whereas it seems like the insert in question is curved at the bottom. Maybe I'm just trying to find something wrong, as the dial looks relumed to me and the lugs look like it's never had a bracelet, which seems odd for such an old watch. Curious what others think.
|
|
|
|
|
11 September 2012, 11:32 PM
|
#9 |
|
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: RedSox Nation
Watch: U Talkn Bout Wilis
Posts: 5,503
|
I have what appears to be the similar fonts on my late 70s Tudor. Hard to say on the curved three
Otherwise looks good from what I can see. 
__________________
I'm a sailor peg. And I've lost my leg. Climbing up the top sails. I've lost my leg! |
|
|
|
|
11 September 2012, 11:40 PM
|
#10 | |
|
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Florida
Posts: 16,736
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 September 2012, 11:54 PM
|
#11 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PNW
Posts: 45
|
Love your snowflake. Even in looking at your insert, the spacing between the 1 and 0 in 10 is different from the insert I'm questioning as well as the thickness of the vertical portion of the 5 that is almost kissing the 0. Vintage is tough!
|
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.
Linear Mode
