Please help verify!

[TheSide]

I used a 100x macro lens to take these pictures. I noticed some irregularities with the watch. Everything else matches up. The serials, movement, weight, etc. It's a 2003 Sub.

Issues I see are these (only seen under 20x + magnification):

• The R, O, X in Rolex has dots in the lettering where its like the black paint is missing or came off.
• The Serti's have these little dimple/holes on the side of each.
• The bottom blue sapphire at the 6 hand is not set absolutely perfect. Which I have been told that Rolex goes for perfection.
• No laser etching on the sapphire crystal at the 6 oclock area.

Please see pictures. Reputable dealer so I am confident I can take it back. I did buy used. See pics.

Thanks for the help

[padi56]

Under that sort of magnification would doubt if anything would be perfect even a Rolex dial,high magnification can be a new Rolex watch owners worst enemy.

[kilyung]

Put away that loupe and enjoy the watch.

[mjclark32]

How about some standard magnified pics?

[joe100]

Put down the loupe! Nothing good will come of it!

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Put away that loupe and enjoy the watch.

Xs2

[DiamondJack]

Ultimately, whilst we all love our Rolex watches, we have to accept and understand that Rolex is a mass produced watch and the finish, particularly on a 10 year old watch that has probably been serviced once or twice and suffered the odd handling mark, will simply not stand up to that level of scrutiny.

You really need to be in Patek or ALS territory before you get the 20x mag out......

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by DiamondJack

Ultimately, whilst we all love our Rolex watches, we have to accept and understand that Rolex is a mass produced watch and the finish, particularly on a 10 year old watch that has probably been serviced once or twice and suffered the odd handling mark, will simply not stand up to that level of scrutiny.

You really need to be in Patek or ALS territory before you get the 20x mag out......

Not to mention 100x

[SaddleSC]

I am not sure you are using enough magnification.
I like to use an electron microscope to really find some serious defects.

[Roller07]

Only thing I can verify is that if you put your watches under that kind of scrutiny, you will not enjoy them.

[tedscott3]

Wow, just stop over thinking it. You will never be able to enjoy your piece. They were not doing laser etching in 2003 right?

[S52]

I made the same mistake after buying my first Rolex... got my 5DMark2 SLR and 100mm macro lens... not a pretty sight!

[Token74]

Originally Posted by DiamondJack

Ultimately, whilst we all love our Rolex watches, we have to accept and understand that Rolex is a mass produced watch and the finish, particularly on a 10 year old watch that has probably been serviced once or twice and suffered the odd handling mark, will simply not stand up to that level of scrutiny.

You really need to be in Patek or ALS territory before you get the 20x mag out......

Are Patek really that much better? If they are, wow!

[SLS]

As stated earlier, a normal picture of the watch would be better.
Scott

[CrownMe]

and i thought i was bad looking with a 10X loupe bahahaha

[crowncollection]

100x you will see flaws in everything , put that stuff away. IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[subtona]

4x is max i would use.


100x will just leave you so unsatisfied,

[Cc1966]

Heck, I can barely see the date via the Cyclops on mine! Put that loupe away as it will only cause you more lost sleep.

[cop414]

Originally Posted by subtona

4x is max i would use.


100x will just leave you so unsatisfied,

+1
I used a 6x I believe when I first bough my Sub, all was well. I put it away and haven't touched it since (the loupe that is, not the Sub). 100x... nope, you're going to find something at that kind of magnification. How about some normal non magnified pics?

[TheSide]

Thanks everyone for the help. I did take it to AD. Paid $125 to have it fully taken apart and inspected, with documentation. It ended up being all rolex but bastardized. The dial was real but was manually redone/painted at one point (they couldn't figure out why). Also the Serti's were not official, but aftermarket. Even the moment was overly worn. They said something like 35 years of wear in a 10yr old watch.

I took it back from where I bought it and got an easy return. No hassles. At all. Very professional.

Last night I picked up a brand new Sub-C LB with Serti Dial from AD. Using my 20x loop it looks flawless inside. Quite different. While I spent a lot more money paying new (compared to the previous used Sub), I am very happy with how things turned out.

Thanks again for all the help.

[Cc1966]

Congrats on your new purchase...now enjoy it!

[AK797]

Hubble telescope or nothing.

[SohAIS]

Originally Posted by AK797

Hubble telescope or nothing.

[mruhland31]

Originally Posted by Roller07

Only thing I can verify is that if you put your watches under that kind of scrutiny, you will not enjoy them.

Please just enjoy your watch...life is way too short

[beshannon]

That does not even look like a watch to me so it is impossible to answer your question

[ocwatching]

Originally Posted by TheSide

Thanks everyone for the help. I did take it to AD. Paid $125 to have it fully taken apart and inspected, with documentation. It ended up being all rolex but bastardized. The dial was real but was manually redone/painted at one point (they couldn't figure out why). Also the Serti's were not official, but aftermarket. Even the moment was overly worn. They said something like 35 years of wear in a 10yr old watch.

I took it back from where I bought it and got an easy return. No hassles. At all. Very professional.

Last night I picked up a brand new Sub-C LB with Serti Dial from AD. Using my 20x loop it looks flawless inside. Quite different. While I spent a lot more money paying new (compared to the previous used Sub), I am very happy with how things turned out.

Thanks again for all the help.

congrats...peace of mind...