ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

tcnjay · 25 April 2015, 07:20 PM

Hi Members,

Hoping to get some assistance from everyone while I am overseas in Europe. I came across a Gent selling his Rolex. He said it was from 1972, but the serial number says 1978. Could be just a mix up so not a big deal in my eyes. The model is a GMT Maser with the 1675 case.

I don't know any jewelers here so wanted to get the opinions of more experienced Rolex members. Does this watch look legit?

Thanks for your help. I am looking to meet him today so any advice would be appreciated.

kooltzar · 25 April 2015, 07:28 PM

At leasr we should see pictures of the dial. Who is the seller? Is the price too good to be true?

tcnjay · 25 April 2015, 07:30 PM

Sorry here are more detailed pictures! He is asking for ~$1,500 USD....

TimeToGo · 25 April 2015, 11:27 PM

The watch on the pictures look good and if that is the price, it is a steal (hopefully not literally)... Be careful with going to unknown places with pockets full of cash.

watchabout · 26 April 2015, 12:07 AM

I'm no expert (by a mile) but the letters in "ROLEX" look too thick for me. It could very well be that that was normal back when this model was made, but definitely they aren't as thick today.

$1500 is highly suspicious, either fake or stolen, but unlikely that a legit seller would let go of this model for this low.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

powerfunk · 26 April 2015, 12:21 AM

While overseas, you "came across a gent" trying to sell you a "Rolex 1675" and he had all of his boxes of papers with him and he let you take pictures of it all? And he's asking for 1/4 of the price of a legit one?

cab56 · 26 April 2015, 01:57 AM

If it's too good to be true ...

... run !!

kooltzar · 26 April 2015, 04:30 AM

Dial would be an MKII around 1972 (if authentic; I agree with watchabout that fonts seem too thick, but that could be due to the photo quality), the hands are definitely newer and the case dates to 1977. What makes you think it is a 1978? Have you seen a caseback stamp? Where did you get all these pictures made for an online sale? I guess either you saw this watch advertised online for sale or something is wrong with the story. 1500 would be the deal of a lifetime, doubt someone who makes so many sales photos has no clue about approximate value. If it is really this watch with a genuine working movement take it and I will pay you double as long as you are in Europe.

nickb732 · 26 April 2015, 06:32 AM

If its real, I reckon its worth at least 3 or 4 times the amount he's asking.

Tridor · 26 April 2015, 07:40 AM

The dial looks wrong to me for a variety of reasons. Also, note that the paper work does not make specific reference to anything identifying the watch in the photo as the watch referenced in the papers; the watch's serial number is not stated in the papers, only an arbitrary "stock number." So, the papers could be from any GMT Master. I would pass on this.

Callummcs · 26 April 2015, 07:53 AM

I am no expert here but as others have said the font looks way too thick. The price seems very, very low.

I would pass

zama · 26 April 2015, 09:59 AM

Looks like a steal literally......

CharlieMae · 26 April 2015, 01:40 PM

A 5.1m case was produced in 1977. Is it possible the watch sat around for 4 years before being sold in 1981..Yes. Is it likely, I would say no.

In my opinion the paperwork does not match up with the watch and with no serial numbers printed on the sale receipt it could be for any GMT. I say its too old a watch to be sold new in 1981 as GMT's sold pretty well and usually within 2 years of their production dates.

cajunron · 26 April 2015, 04:40 PM

The dial printing looks dodgy to me.

AL7273 · 26 April 2015, 06:24 PM

something about the dial looks off. can you take it to an AD or a jeweler to get the case back off and verify the movement.

price is too good to be true.

TimeToGo · 26 April 2015, 09:22 PM

The Dial is fine..
A very nice set. Hopefully the OP scored!

CharlieMae · 26 April 2015, 09:42 PM

Dial should be a Mark 4, not a Mark 2, so I must disagree that the dial is fine for a 5.1m case.

TimeToGo · 26 April 2015, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieMae

Dial should be a Mark 4, not a Mark 2, so I must disagree that the dial is fine for a 5.1m case.

The comment is that the "dial printing looks dodgy" "looks wrong" "looks off"..

I think it was already established that the Mk-2 does not belong to the case, thus not proper for the production year.

Yes, your observation is accurate...

tcnjay · 27 April 2015, 06:27 PM

I actually saw an ad on craigslist for the watch, and received pictures via email. The seller hasn't responded to me when I asked to meet up in person, so I am assuming it was a scam. If I do buy it, I will send out an update! But thanks for everyone's help. It does seem too good to be true...

View Poll Results: Is this Rolex Genuine?
Yes	4	40.00%
No	6	60.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

26 April 2015, 06:32 AM	#9
nickb732 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Real Name: Nicholas Location: UK Posts: 2,630	If its real, I reckon its worth at least 3 or 4 times the amount he's asking. __________________ Nick

26 April 2015, 07:53 AM	#11
Callummcs "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2014 Real Name: Callum Location: Glasgow, UK Posts: 262	I am no expert here but as others have said the font looks way too thick. The price seems very, very low. I would pass __________________ There's something one should expect not only of a watch, but also of oneself: To never stand still - Walter Lange

26 April 2015, 09:59 AM	#12
zama "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Craig Location: Sydney Watch: 4 Broken glass Posts: 5,807	Looks like a steal literally...... __________________ Day Date 118206, Daytona 116509 & 116505, AP 25859ST Gone but not forgotten and genuinely missed..... Root Beer GMT, Sub, TT Daytona, YG DD Bark, Datejust(2 his & hers), AP RO, PP Aquanaut, Lange 1, Heuer Monza, Piaget Altiplano, GP Chrono, Seamaster, Tudor Sub, Tudor Chrono, Tudor Black Bay Bronze

26 April 2015, 04:40 PM	#14
cajunron 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: Ronnie Location: Southeastern USA Watch: Omega Seamaster PO Posts: 3,872	The dial printing looks dodgy to me. __________________

25 April 2015, 07:28 PM	#2
kooltzar "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Zürich Watch: Submariner 5512 Posts: 922	At leasr we should see pictures of the dial. Who is the seller? Is the price too good to be true?

25 April 2015, 11:27 PM	#4
TimeToGo 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: North Florida Posts: 16,719	The watch on the pictures look good and if that is the price, it is a steal (hopefully not literally)... Be careful with going to unknown places with pockets full of cash.

26 April 2015, 12:07 AM	#5
watchabout "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Real Name: Dave Location: miami Watch: Submariner Posts: 374	I'm no expert (by a mile) but the letters in "ROLEX" look too thick for me. It could very well be that that was normal back when this model was made, but definitely they aren't as thick today. $1500 is highly suspicious, either fake or stolen, but unlikely that a legit seller would let go of this model for this low. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

26 April 2015, 12:21 AM	#6
powerfunk "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Real Name: Rob Location: Boston, MA Watch: 1530 Posts: 3,799	While overseas, you "came across a gent" trying to sell you a "Rolex 1675" and he had all of his boxes of papers with him and he let you take pictures of it all? And he's asking for 1/4 of the price of a legit one?

26 April 2015, 01:57 AM	#7
cab56 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Real Name: Chris Location: Canada Watch: many! Posts: 1,134	If it's too good to be true ... ... run !!

26 April 2015, 04:30 AM	#8
kooltzar "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Zürich Watch: Submariner 5512 Posts: 922	Dial would be an MKII around 1972 (if authentic; I agree with watchabout that fonts seem too thick, but that could be due to the photo quality), the hands are definitely newer and the case dates to 1977. What makes you think it is a 1978? Have you seen a caseback stamp? Where did you get all these pictures made for an online sale? I guess either you saw this watch advertised online for sale or something is wrong with the story. 1500 would be the deal of a lifetime, doubt someone who makes so many sales photos has no clue about approximate value. If it is really this watch with a genuine working movement take it and I will pay you double as long as you are in Europe.

26 April 2015, 07:40 AM	#10
Tridor "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: The Ozone Watch: DD, DJ, SubC Date Posts: 1,666	The dial looks wrong to me for a variety of reasons. Also, note that the paper work does not make specific reference to anything identifying the watch in the photo as the watch referenced in the papers; the watch's serial number is not stated in the papers, only an arbitrary "stock number." So, the papers could be from any GMT Master. I would pass on this.

26 April 2015, 01:40 PM	#13
CharlieMae Banned Join Date: May 2012 Location: New Jersey Posts: 171	A 5.1m case was produced in 1977. Is it possible the watch sat around for 4 years before being sold in 1981..Yes. Is it likely, I would say no. In my opinion the paperwork does not match up with the watch and with no serial numbers printed on the sale receipt it could be for any GMT. I say its too old a watch to be sold new in 1981 as GMT's sold pretty well and usually within 2 years of their production dates.

26 April 2015, 06:24 PM	#15
AL7273 Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UAE Posts: 195	something about the dial looks off. can you take it to an AD or a jeweler to get the case back off and verify the movement. price is too good to be true.

26 April 2015, 09:22 PM	#16
TimeToGo 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: North Florida Posts: 16,719	The Dial is fine.. A very nice set. Hopefully the OP scored!

26 April 2015, 09:42 PM	#17
CharlieMae Banned Join Date: May 2012 Location: New Jersey Posts: 171	Dial should be a Mark 4, not a Mark 2, so I must disagree that the dial is fine for a 5.1m case.

27 April 2015, 06:27 PM	#19
tcnjay "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: NJ Posts: 31	I actually saw an ad on craigslist for the watch, and received pictures via email. The seller hasn't responded to me when I asked to meet up in person, so I am assuming it was a scam. If I do buy it, I will send out an update! But thanks for everyone's help. It does seem too good to be true...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)