Is this a Real or Fake Rolex 1680 Red Submariner? Experts needed.

[marcusjcw21]

Look at the case back and between the lugs.

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53...mtid=824&kw=lg

[Michael M.]

Looks fine to me. Only concern of mine would be the chips on the dial.

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by Michael M.

Looks fine to me. Only concern of mine would be the chips on the dial.

I kind of thought that the inside of the case back stamping didn't look crisp enough and that the inside of the case back looked like it wasn't the usual lathe turned - almost has a sandblasted look to me and some of the grooves on the turning look deeper than others.

I also thought the engraving between the lugs looked a little bit messy, but that could be the scratches.

[Rameez-Q]

All the lugs are different sizes, pretty uneven as are crown guards, chips in the dial too.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Rameez-Q

All the lugs are different sizes, pretty uneven as are crown guards, chips in the dial too.

Not one of my Subs (including the ones I've sold) has perfectly symmetrical lugs. It's not an indicator of a fake case, especially when you consider the vast number of Subs that have been polished.

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Not one of my Subs (including the ones I've sold) has perfectly symmetrical lugs. It's not an indicator of a fake case, especially when you consider the vast number of Subs that have been polished.

I would say that if the lugs are perfectly symmetrical on an old Sub, then it would be more likely to not be genuine.

[marcusjcw21]

On this model on the back of the crown guards is it supposed to be square toward where they come out of the case? These don't look square in the photos on my computer screen.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by marcusjcw21

On this model on the back of the crown guards is it supposed to be square toward where they come out of the case? These don't look square in the photos on my computer screen.

Double check the pics and see if you can find bare feet or lack of clothing to determine if it's fake!

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by Michael M.

Looks fine to me. Only concern of mine would be the chips on the dial.

If you don't mind, please compare the engraving between the lugs to this one. The spacing from top to bottom and between is different as well as the sizing.

Here is the 1680 for comparison http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53...mtid=824&kw=lg

[springer]

Case and case back are genuine. As Morgan commented, there are some chips on the edge of the dial but it appears genuine also.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by marcusjcw21

If you don't mind, please compare the engraving between the lugs to this one. The spacing from top to bottom and between is different as well as the sizing.

Here is the 1680 for comparison http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53...mtid=824&kw=lg

THe engravings are OK - and can be found and duplicated elsewhere. You can see different engravers with mildly different patterns across years and models. Would like a clearer photo but it looks good

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by linesiders

THe engravings are OK - and can be found and duplicated elsewhere. You can see different engravers with mildly different patterns across years and models. Would like a clearer photo but it looks good

Thanks for the explanation

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by marcusjcw21

Thanks for the explanation

Compare with this one

http://www.hqmilton.com/watches/1969...0-mark-iv-dial

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by linesiders

Compare with this one

http://www.hqmilton.com/watches/1969...0-mark-iv-dial

Okay. Thanks. But back to the case back. I posted 2 links 2 different ebay auctions. In the first link, the II.70 appears to have the "II" italicized. Those 2 Is are not straight up and down.

In the second one, the "II.70" has the Is straight up and down. Why would there be such a big difference between 2 case backs produced for 1680s in the same quarter of the same year?

Here are the links again.

Bad case back: http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53...mtid=824&kw=lg

Good case back: http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53...mtid=824&kw=lg


Those case backs look waaaaaaaaay different from one another. I am still dubious of that first one. That case back looks really wrong.

[southtexas]

Here's a crappy pic of my 1680 caseback, same quarter and year as the one in question.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by southtexas

Here's a crappy pic of my 1680 caseback, same quarter and year as the one in question.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok thanks for that pic. Then are both styles acceptable or is the other one bad? I have seen case backs like yours and really thought they were not genuine. They don't look clean and refined.

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by southtexas

Here's a crappy pic of my 1680 caseback, same quarter and year as the one in question.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yours looks like IV ofr the quarter. Am I mistaken when I look at that first case back? Is it inreality an IV and I am sseing it as italicized II??

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by marcusjcw21

Yours looks like IV ofr the quarter. Am I mistaken when I look at that first case back? Is it inreality an IV and I am sseing it as italicized II??

Your "1" in the 1680 is different than his also.

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by marcusjcw21

Yours looks like IV ofr the quarter. Am I mistaken when I look at that first case back? Is it inreality an IV and I am sseing it as italicized II??

I thought the original eBay listing said IV; hence my post. I did also notice that my "1" in 1680 has a hook at the top, whereas the eBay one doesn't (hq Milton example has hook also). Interestingly, all of the examples have the 68 closer together than the 1 or 0, even though the 1 is different. FWIW Mine has been in the hands of highly esteemed watchmakers on this site, so I'm 100% confident in it.

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by southtexas

I thought the original eBay listing said IV; hence my post. I did also notice that my "1" in 1680 has a hook at the top, whereas the eBay one doesn't (hq Milton example has hook also). Interestingly, all of the examples have the 68 closer together than the 1 or 0, even though the 1 is different. FWIW Mine has been in the hands of highly esteemed watchmakers on this site, so I'm 100% confident in it.

Thanks for the info and vote of confidence in your case back. It is really difficult to discern if the other 2 are legit or if one is wrong... I don't see why the stamps would be so much different. I guess it was a different age in manufacturing... or one of the case backs might not be authentic? I would appreciate additional opinions on this one.

[yourule40]

If the lugs are perfectly symmetrical, chances are it's not a real Rolex. If they are slightly different, which yours seem to be, that's usually a good indicator that it's authentic. Looking at certain details as such, I can tell you with certainty that it is real. Beautiful sub model, I would buy myself

[crowncollection]

Looks ok


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rameez-Q]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Not one of my Subs (including the ones I've sold) has perfectly symmetrical lugs. It's not an indicator of a fake case, especially when you consider the vast number of Subs that have been polished.

I meant this from an aesthetic view rather than whether it was genuine or not. Your unlikely to find even lugs on vintage but this one hasn't had a great polish job imo

[marcusjcw21]

I was over on the WatchOUT!!! section on TRF just now checking out a warning about an alleged unadvertised after market diamond dial by Hess Fine Auctions and here is a 1680 from Hess fine auctions with that same type of case back.

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53...mtid=824&kw=lg

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Rameez-Q

I meant this from an aesthetic view rather than whether it was genuine or not. Your unlikely to find even lugs on vintage but this one hasn't had a great polish job imo

Gotcha

[springer]

Originally Posted by marcusjcw21

I was over on the WatchOUT!!! section on TRF just now checking out a warning about an alleged unadvertised after market diamond dial by Hess Fine Auctions and here is a 1680 from Hess fine auctions with that same type of case back.

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53...mtid=824&kw=lg

I see no issues with the Submariner case back at Hessfineauctions. But, their auctions are known for selling mislabeled, misidentified and watches with incorrect parts.

[Wahlberg]

Did you buy it?

[jeff hess]

Originally Posted by springer

I see no issues with the Submariner case back at Hessfineauctions. But, their auctions are known for selling mislabeled, misidentified and watches with incorrect parts.

Hi,

Well this is not quite true. (BTE, we love TRF)

In fact, we bought this from the original owner.

In fact we are not known for selling mislabeled misidentified watches with incorrect parts.


We are known only for our straight up auctions with straight up descriptions and lots of pictures and terrific return policy.

We are also longtime TRF members.

We are known for my monthly newsletter about Rolex that I printed for man years in the 90's. We are known for the book I authored with James Dowling.

We are known for being the arbiter helping settle beef's between dealer/collectors as the "final word" as to authenticity.

We are known for our expert witness prowess with courts/

We are known for being picked by the United State Bankruptcy court to sell the multi million dollars Rothstein collection of watches.

We are known for teaching classes at St. Petersburg College.

We have a double red sea dweller up right now...we also bough this form the orig owner with matching box and papers, the aforementioned red sub, and several vintage watches with original papers. We just sold on ebay a double red MARK IV for 28k on ebay 10 days ago. We just acquired a rare MARK I faded double red patent pending Sea Dweller.

I am the moderator for 12 years on the nawcc (non profit group) board.

I appreciate the kind words on here and rarely rise to the negativity.

We enjoy a terrific reputation among collectors worldwide and have sold millions of dollars of vintage rolexes for 35 years.

Have we made mistakes? Yes and we admit them and own them. After all, with 42 employees, stuff does happen.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey P. Hess

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Hi,

Well this is not quite true. (BTE, we love TRF)

In fact, we bought this from the original owner.

In fact we are not known for selling mislabeled misidentified watches with incorrect parts.


We are known only for our straight up auctions with straight up descriptions and lots of pictures and terrific return policy.

We are also longtime TRF members.

We are known for my monthly newsletter about Rolex that I printed for man years in the 90's. We are known for the book I authored with James Dowling.

We are known for being the arbiter helping settle beef's between dealer/collectors as the "final word" as to authenticity.

We are known for our expert witness prowess with courts/

We are known for being picked by the United State Bankruptcy court to sell the multi million dollars Rothstein collection of watches.

We are known for teaching classes at St. Petersburg College.

We have a double red sea dweller up right now...we also bough this form the orig owner with matching box and papers, the aforementioned red sub, and several vintage watches with original papers. We just sold on ebay a double red MARK IV for 28k on ebay 10 days ago. We just acquired a rare MARK I faded double red patent pending Sea Dweller.

I am the moderator for 12 years on the nawcc (non profit group) board.

I appreciate the kind words on here and rarely rise to the negativity.

We enjoy a terrific reputation among collectors worldwide and have sold millions of dollars of vintage rolexes for 35 years.

Have we made mistakes? Yes and we admit them and own them. After all, with 42 employees, stuff does happen.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey P. Hess

Hi Mr. Hess... I was using your case back example to show that it is seeming like this style of internal stamping and lathe turning seems to be okay. Whereas in the beginning, I thought it wasnt okay, but a few examples including yours that I found convinced me otherwise. Thank you for responding.

[jeff hess]

Thanks Mr.Marcus.

We bought it from the original owner. And his brother brought in HIS also. one is dates 1975 on caseback (outside) and the other is dated 1974. But teh movment serisl numbers are like 30 serial numbers apart!

we source 90% of our watches from old men who were orignal owners. We not like to buy watches from dealers...too many problems...

In fact, I am looking for TUdor expert right now...does anyone know one? I have owned thousands of Rolex Tudors but do not consider myself an expert. And I have 2 that came in form dealers that I am 99% certain are genuine. And I would like a second opinion.

Thanks in advance!

Jeff