Ronin

Merry Christmas 100

BOT Test

BOT Test

BOT Test

Matching the Snow outside...

So are we allowed to 'game' this. ??? My BOT is standing by.

Someone please put that thing out of its misery.

Ok, I must confess, I just wrote a BOT that could probably guarantee success in this contest. It just seems a bit like taking candy from a baby. Also, not sure how the moderators would feel about it. So what are the rules again...

Xmas

Merry

Nice

Unless you have a good rapport with your dealer, you will not get a deal on a SS Daytona. If you do have a good rapport, 10% might be possible (i.e. you have already spent five figures at their shop).

Excellent guidelines. I would add a contingency for age. The older the person, I feel you can probably add $$$$. Once you cross the 40 / 50 year old barrier, and if you are not a slouch, you probably will not be questioned. If I saw a 60 yr old wearing a PN Daytona, or any Patek, I would assume GEN ~before~ assuming fake.

Franken, in my mind, conjures up a pieced together watch. Usually with a combination of Gen & Aftermarket parts. Franken, to me, also has a faint air of meant to deceive. YMMV. Like Dr. Frankenstein's Monster, an arm from here, a leg from there -or- a dial from here, a case, bezel from there. In the case of RSC performing ALL work on watch -NO- it should not be considered a Franken. No different than taking your car in for service or a recall, and the dealership retrofitting some new part. I would NOT call a watch a Franken that: 1.) Contains all Genuine parts that a given model would have used (over its lifetime). 1a.) as above but fully maintained by RSC that might contain a retro fit (i.e. Lumi Dial where a T dial used to be). 2.) Is an honest to god "Variation" that came out of the factory. I would call a watch a Franken that: 1.) Contains parts from various models. (i.e. a 16800 dial in a 1680. A "conversion" of a 16610 into a Two-Tone 16613.) Brozak called these "Swap-Jobs" in his book. 2.) (Per Rolex Definition) Contains aftermarket parts. (Personally, I think some of that is crap as certain parts should be excepted, especially if Rolex stops producing them). Technically, (per Rolex) adding a Hirsch Leather Strap, makes it counterfeit! Crazy! --- Final thought. I have collected various other things in the past. ONLY in the Rolex world have I seen a general disdain of potential variations -vs- an actual INCREASE in value and collectablity of said variations. (at least until some big-wig in the Rolex community "blesses" the variation, usually after they own it.)

Made my feet and palms sweat watching that.... Hell No!

No offense, but unless you are/were a Rolex employee with implicit knowledge of the assembly line and corporate policies when these watches were rolling off the line-- Saying "Rolex would never ____________ " is a bit reaching. It would be acceptable to say "Based on the current body of knowledge, that is non-Oyster dial in an Oyster case. Barring factory fsckups, it could be considered a franken by today's standards." Again, no offense, and I hate to split hairs...

Looks great! Nice team effort too. In my twisted head I have dubbed the "L I P" dial the "Lost in Translation" dial based on the scene in the movie 'LIP my Stockings!'

Understood. I just struggle with hard-fast 'rules' being assigned when it comes to a lot of the vintage stuff. Lets face it, MOST of the reference material we have comes from pre-internet sharing. The printed words of Pergola, Mazziriol, Dossa, Brozek, Skeet and Ural should probably not be taken as gospel, most of the research there comes from a smaller network / pre-internet era. Things are popping up, more and more thanks in part to the internet bringing people closer together. The thing is, variations exist in practically any manufactured item. We have determined in this thread that 1965 was the intro of the 6240. The 'style' of dial on the Boss's watch was on printed Rolex material dated 1966, and if we take the "serial number project" at face value the watch is circa 1967. I think it is safe to assume, that Rolex ~might~ have been using up Old Stock, had a dial mfg screw up, hell this was still the hand made era where someone could have walked in the store room for dial's and put the wrong box on the assembly line. As we can see with the highly transitional nature of a 1675, manufacturing did not start/stop flick a switch. I doubt when Rolex switched to the Oyster Daytona a mandate came down indicating a hard-fast rule regarding dial usage. Back then the Daytona was not a valued watch like it today. My only point is, until Rolex themselves comes out and gives us the real data dump, all we have are "Guidelines" and no hard-fast "Rules" on some of this vintage stuff. Especially during a model year transition.

I have to disagree on this. There are photo's of that 'style' dial in Rolex brochures from 1966. The 6240 was introduced in 1965. It is therefore highly plausible, that this was one of those transitional situations where they were using up dials they had on hand. Trying to pin down exact dial's to cases and model years on much of this vintage Rolex stuff is far from a science. All this proves is that once you 'think' you know something about a vintage Rolex model, something comes along and proves the opposite.

pop

Laugh

+1 If there is no branding / trademark, it is fair game. Also, on certain items, when the patent expires like on a bezel insert, etc, it is fair game as long as there are no brand name/logo's involved.

Yes and No. From government and three letter agency's, to big corporations and Casino's SURE. The issue is when ANYONE with a Smartphone can gain access to personal/private information. (Prediction: Private Detectives are probably next to go the way of Newspapers) I guess I care less about the government getting a court order (by law) to pull my credit card data, tap my phone, or obtain my internet history from my ISP. -or- Even corporations I CHOOSE to do business with. I care more about some sick bastard in a bar stalking my wife, daughter, etc with EASE. -or- Nosy Voyeurs in my Condo building keeping tabs on me. FALSE! 100% FALSE...