ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

RollieVerde · 8 June 2014, 02:44 AM

Apologies for the focus quality-I didn't take the photo. But I'd like an expert opinion from what you can see. The dial troubles me.

fullcourt · 8 June 2014, 04:22 AM

maybe a better pic?

RollieVerde · 8 June 2014, 04:42 AM

No can do, as it's not mine. I just see some things even in this bad photo that are weird.

mr.president1 · 8 June 2014, 05:13 AM

Well the lugs and crown guards look spot on, which most fakes do a poor job of doing. At least the ones I've seen here on the watch outs

BaliBryan · 8 June 2014, 05:36 AM

Isn't this the same photo as this:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=355638

Water in his new submariner?

Too Old · 8 June 2014, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaliBryan

Isn't this the same photo as this:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=355638

Water in his new submariner?

Good spot!

RollieVerde · 8 June 2014, 05:51 AM

Exactly right. So do you see anything odd about the watch?

geneinnc · 8 June 2014, 07:07 AM

I'm confused. Why would you post another members watch here? Is he trying to sell a ruined watch?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

RollieVerde · 8 June 2014, 07:33 AM

It's quite simple: I want to know to practiced eyes if this watch looks like a fake or not on its own merits, regardless of the back story. There are people on this forum that are really adept at spotting anomalies, and I'm curious as to what they think. I see things that look wrong even with this terrible photo (why does anybody post a picture that's clearly out of focus? The OP claims it isn't, BTW) and if I'm wrong, fine. But if a brand new Submariner, purchased at an AD, floods right away just when swimming, that is really bizarre to say the least. I'd love to know how this happened. I'm starting with first trying to see if this is a legit watch to begin with.

crowncollection · 8 June 2014, 07:40 AM

I was suspect as soon as I saw it in the other thread to be honest but the pic is not clear enough for me to be sure.

BaliBryan · 8 June 2014, 07:41 AM

The camera is focused on his fingers, I can't even see the moisture. Does the bezel color look too light? I don't have one for comparison.

Sublover2166 · 8 June 2014, 07:50 AM

I see nothing suspect. I own a new Hulk. Bezel shade looks correct. Lugs and crownguards look good. Engraved rehaut looks like correct font. Funny though that the OP still will not mention the AD by name.

RollieVerde · 8 June 2014, 08:36 AM

How about the gap between 1000ft= 300 meters? It's usually perfectly equidistant between the two values. I read somewhere that this is really hard to get right. Also, the indices look a but large, but that could be the photo. I have an LV as well. Again, it would be nice if the photo was in focus, but you can see the gap I mentioned even in this photo. It might be fine, but it really stands out to me. As for the color, I don't even consider that because it fluctuates too much between camera to camera, shot to shot, even your individual computer display.

BaliBryan · 8 June 2014, 10:13 AM

Hour markers do look very big.

AbsolutelyROLEX! · 8 June 2014, 10:35 AM

Its good but clearly has water damage

crowncollection · 8 June 2014, 12:58 PM

I think we need more pics how can anyone tell this is real, good fake has the right case shape, we can't see anything properly, the pearl, bezels edges, dial font, clasp, how anyone can confirm authenticity is beyond me. The gap after = is the new font on lv with gap after =.

RollieVerde · 8 June 2014, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crowncollection

I think we need more pics how can anyone tell this is real, good fake has the right case shape, we can't see anything properly, the pearl, bezels edges, dial font, clasp, how anyone can confirm authenticity is beyond me. The gap after = is the new font on lv with gap after =.

The gap is asymmetrical (closer to the left side, with a larger gap to the right that is easily noticeable in the photo), where it is balanced between the two values on all the LVs I've seen, including mine which is seven months old. It looks off to me, for it is out of center. Maybe it's a common defect, but it sure looks like something Rolex wouldn't allow out the door.

crowncollection · 8 June 2014, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RollieVerde

The gap is asymmetrical (closer to the left side, with a larger gap to the right that is easily noticeable in the photo), where it is balanced between the two values on all the LVs I've seen, including mine which is seven months old. It looks off to me, for it is out of center. Maybe it's a common defect, but it sure looks like something Rolex wouldn't allow out the door.

I think I misunderstood you sorry, as I said you just can't be sure, the photo is too poor IMHO

RollieVerde · 8 June 2014, 01:58 PM

No apology necessary, and I completely agree. It's just this one thing really stood out to me, even through the haze. But naturally, the lack of sharp focus makes any real evaluation dicey at best.

8 June 2014, 02:44 AM	#1
RollieVerde Banned Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Very Far Away Posts: 579	Real or Fake? Apologies for the focus quality-I didn't take the photo. But I'd like an expert opinion from what you can see. The dial troubles me. Attached Images

8 June 2014, 04:22 AM	#2
fullcourt "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: dp Location: chicago, usa Watch: panerai Posts: 2,369	maybe a better pic? __________________ dp just living the dream chicago, usa chgo_risti on IG

8 June 2014, 05:13 AM	#4
mr.president1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Ohio,UnitedStates Watch: ROLEX OMEGA Posts: 1,458	Well the lugs and crown guards look spot on, which most fakes do a poor job of doing. At least the ones I've seen here on the watch outs __________________ ROLEX & OMEGA

8 June 2014, 07:40 AM	#10
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,216	I was suspect as soon as I saw it in the other thread to be honest but the pic is not clear enough for me to be sure. __________________ watches many

8 June 2014, 10:35 AM	#15
AbsolutelyROLEX! "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Real Name: Andy Location: Ontario, Canada Watch: AKA: ANDERL712000 Posts: 4,935	Its good but clearly has water damage __________________ We want to be the first in the field and Rolex should be seen as the one and only-the best. Hans Wilsdorf, Rolex founder

8 June 2014, 04:42 AM	#3
RollieVerde Banned Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Very Far Away Posts: 579	No can do, as it's not mine. I just see some things even in this bad photo that are weird.

8 June 2014, 05:36 AM	#5
BaliBryan "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Las Vegas Watch: 1680 RED, OP39,PAM Posts: 192	Isn't this the same photo as this: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=355638 Water in his new submariner?

8 June 2014, 05:51 AM	#7
RollieVerde Banned Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Very Far Away Posts: 579	Exactly right. So do you see anything odd about the watch?

8 June 2014, 07:07 AM	#8
geneinnc "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: North Carolina Posts: 288	I'm confused. Why would you post another members watch here? Is he trying to sell a ruined watch? Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

8 June 2014, 07:33 AM	#9
RollieVerde Banned Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Very Far Away Posts: 579	It's quite simple: I want to know to practiced eyes if this watch looks like a fake or not on its own merits, regardless of the back story. There are people on this forum that are really adept at spotting anomalies, and I'm curious as to what they think. I see things that look wrong even with this terrible photo (why does anybody post a picture that's clearly out of focus? The OP claims it isn't, BTW) and if I'm wrong, fine. But if a brand new Submariner, purchased at an AD, floods right away just when swimming, that is really bizarre to say the least. I'd love to know how this happened. I'm starting with first trying to see if this is a legit watch to begin with.

8 June 2014, 07:41 AM	#11
BaliBryan "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Las Vegas Watch: 1680 RED, OP39,PAM Posts: 192	The camera is focused on his fingers, I can't even see the moisture. Does the bezel color look too light? I don't have one for comparison.

8 June 2014, 07:50 AM	#12
Sublover2166 Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Real Name: John Location: Manassas,Virginia Watch: Ol'Bluesy & Hulk Posts: 2,871	I see nothing suspect. I own a new Hulk. Bezel shade looks correct. Lugs and crownguards look good. Engraved rehaut looks like correct font. Funny though that the OP still will not mention the AD by name.

8 June 2014, 08:36 AM	#13
RollieVerde Banned Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Very Far Away Posts: 579	How about the gap between 1000ft= 300 meters? It's usually perfectly equidistant between the two values. I read somewhere that this is really hard to get right. Also, the indices look a but large, but that could be the photo. I have an LV as well. Again, it would be nice if the photo was in focus, but you can see the gap I mentioned even in this photo. It might be fine, but it really stands out to me. As for the color, I don't even consider that because it fluctuates too much between camera to camera, shot to shot, even your individual computer display.

8 June 2014, 10:13 AM	#14
BaliBryan "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Las Vegas Watch: 1680 RED, OP39,PAM Posts: 192	Hour markers do look very big.

8 June 2014, 12:58 PM	#16
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,216	I think we need more pics how can anyone tell this is real, good fake has the right case shape, we can't see anything properly, the pearl, bezels edges, dial font, clasp, how anyone can confirm authenticity is beyond me. The gap after = is the new font on lv with gap after =. __________________ watches many

8 June 2014, 01:58 PM	#19
RollieVerde Banned Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Very Far Away Posts: 579	No apology necessary, and I completely agree. It's just this one thing really stood out to me, even through the haze. But naturally, the lack of sharp focus makes any real evaluation dicey at best.

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