alligoat Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Is this real or is it Memorex? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cats Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 I'm certainly not an expert but i like the dial and hands very much. Could be the photo but i see a strange shape of the lower crown guards. Carpe Diem Cats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbh Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 If it's guessing game, I'll guess genuine. If it's a rep please tell me where to get one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailboss Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Date font and cyclops look crappy. LOL @ obscure Jello Biafra reference. Col. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panerai153 Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 I agree with trailboss, something is weird about the cyclops. the longer you look at it, the worse it appears. IS the watch tilted forward a little? The cyclops looks like it isn't centered over the date window, and the numbers look fuzzy, like ink bleed? Just went back and looked at a photo of a 1680 in Skeet & Urul.It looks like the cyclops on this watch is too big. the genuine size is 2 ticks above the 3 and 2 ticks below. this one is 2 1/2 above and below. Not much, but when you make the photo 5X lifesize it really shows. Arthur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted December 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 What about this one? Any similarities in the dial?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbh Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Here's (another) gen to compare it to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickdick Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Its a nice gen Polfy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted December 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Nice one kbh, Here's a 4th one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJo35 Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 What about this one? Any similarities in the dial?? Dial is totally different from the first one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panerai153 Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 jojo, How about giving some of us neophytes a quick tutorial on the differences? I saved the two photos, put them side by side, and I can't see anything outside of the patina. I would really like to know, and I'm sure there are lots of others who, like me, just can't pick up the subtle differences. Thanks Arthur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbh Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Nice one kbh, Here's a 4th one All right, the only thing I see is a slight difference in the length of the second hand from your first picture. On the first picture the CGs look a little smaller. Seems still within Rolex's rather wide tolerances though. Also the crown looks a little larger, another item than can often be changed at the RSC when being serviced. I think the cyclops is OK. Just the picture makes it look funny. So when you gonna tell us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted December 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Ok, mine is a 78, 5.8mil Beyeler dial. Silver date wheel, service crystal, 703 crown and short seconds hand?? Second is a 5.6mil, same L in Rolex left of center of crown, c in chronometer left of = above. Other than the lume, it's the same dial print. KBH's dial is the same vintage- same L and c arrangement. 4th dial is maybe earlier, don't know. L is centered, = and c are in line. Just more of Rolex's quirks- different dial mfrs. Sorry about the photo, it is Photo 101, I'm still struggling. Cyclops and cg's are OK for a 30 yr old watch- lugs are polished, it's on a 93150 w/ 580 end pieces. My first gen Rolex back in 2005/6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gplracer Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Nice watch! I really like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbh Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Since one dial is .2mm larger, that would account for the appearance of a smaller second hand. Do you still have the watch? It's a beauty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted December 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 kbh, it's not .2mm larger, it's 200,000 later in SN. 5,8xx,xxx vs the yellow lume dial being 5,6xx,xxx. Both are from around 1978. I still have the watch, but I don't wear it as much as my 16800's, I'm just too tough on those plastic crystals. The second hand was replaced during service 3-4 yrs ago, the lume fell out. I also had a new insert put in, the old one kept falling out. The insert is gen, but I don't know about the seconds hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted December 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 Here's another 1680, 5,11x,xxx SN. This dial also has the centered L and the c in chronometer under the =. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.