Jump to content
When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.
  • Current Donation Goals

Lady in Red.... Real or Replica?


JoJo35

Recommended Posts

Well....... I will take a guess. First I must say that the watch looks great so it does not matter. To me it looks like a genuine folded link band and a rep dial. I think the red "submariner" should not be as wide as the text below it. I think the dial looks great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not a big expert on the tiny little detail differences between the different red dials... BUT for the feet first dial, the red SUBMARINER should be slightly shorter than the text below it.. the C in chronometer on the open 6 dials should have a serif on it almost making it look like a G. The cornet looks ok.. crown looks like a 702 twinlock.. bracelet looks correct to me... date code for 1970 seems right for the feet first dial... meters first would be older...

probably gen white 1680 with a aftermarket or redial red feet first open 6 dial??

dizz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this one............."PATETED"! Would Rolex made that misprint??? :whistling:

5047d934.jpg

HAHA i didnt even see that.. looks Chinese to me!

lol

Its an awesome watch.. looks gen.. even the dial is awesome but im not convinced its a genuine red dial, pretty darn close though. The differences i am talking about are so small that you can barely see them without magnification or very close inspection. I just pulled up doubleredseadweller.com and compared to the feet first, open 6 red dials pictured there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this one............."PATETED"! Would Rolex made that misprint??? :whistling:

I think the PATETED bracelets are genuine and were definitely produced by Rolex. The PATETED 9315 bracelets are worth more that the normal 9315 bracelets in today's market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PATETED diver extensions were originally fitted on early 70s DRSD 1665...

LOL... learned something again today! I would definitely have said this is a rep, because of that typo... :shock: Funny!

After all, those "mistakes" often increase the value for collectors - think of famous stamp misprints...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for your comments. I've found that the discussions here regarding vintage have always been much more interesting than most of the "show and tell" threads on the gen forums.

As far as this piece goes, it's as gen and original as it gets. Regarding the dial, I have a feeling that those of us who have been around a while knew immediately it was gen. The watch is a 2.9 mil, and the dial is the so-called MkIII. The first of the open six "feet first" variants. This version and the later, slightly less "open-six" version can be seen on double red sea dweller dot com. Why that second open-six version was never called a MkIV is anyones guess, but after that one was the closed six version, and then the factory replacement dial.

"Pateted" is amusing, isn't it? A quick search on any of the gen forums will return a host of threads regarding this extension, which was a very early seventies "mistake" that was original equipment on 5513's, 1680's, and 1665's.

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the date wheel (other than mjmj) or crystal? Both interesting early variants as well.

Thanks for reading,

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up