Is This A Gen 1665 Insert?

[turkey]

I've been staring at this for at least an hour and switching back to looking at the inserts on reps and on http://www.doubleredseadweller.com/dr_dials.htm

I can't tell for the life of me if its gen or not. I'm sure all of you have a better eye for this thing than I do. Care to help a guy out?

[lionsandtigers]

i've been watching that one on ebay also, and i'm the current high bidder. looks pretty damn gen to me, but i could be wrong.

if it is gen, you're gonna have to fight me for it

[ubiquitous]

Negative. Pearl looks like it has a metal surround as is too large in diameter.

This is how a genuine pearl for a vintage should look...

And on the left...

EDIT to correct that the actual lume dot looks too large...

[lionsandtigers]

i think its possiby that it's a newer gen, refinished to look vintage...would you say that may be the case Randy? cause the pearl seems to match up with that of the modern one.

[turkey]

Thanks ubiquitous. Looks like you're going to save a few people some money.

Out of curiosity, how would you be able to determine if it was a gen if there was no pearl as in the following picture?

[ubiquitous]

The vintage inserts only used one kind of pearl, and that's the one with the lume dot in the acrylic setting. The new style ones with the metal setting is without a doubt aftermarket, as this is something that Rolex only began using with the 16800/16660/16610 sapphire models only (the pearl setting is actually WG).

As for determining the authenticity of a vintage insert with a missing pearl- There are a couple of factors. First is the finish of the insert itself. These are hard anodized and very durable. The thickness of the insert is substantial. The font of the markers are very slim and precise, and the hole for the pearl setting is very small in diameter.

There are other determining factors, but this gives you an idea of the bigger clues to look for...

[HauteHippie]

Thanks ubiquitous. Looks like you're going to save a few people some money.

Out of curiosity, how would you be able to determine if it was a gen if there was no pearl as in the following picture?

I'm FAR from an expert here, but that one in your pic just looks intentionally vintagized to me... My [censored] meter is pegged on that one, but of course I could easily be wrong.

[ubiquitous]

It looks like it's been sanded on... But, I know of some owners of genuine vintage Rolex's who also try to duplicate the look of age (it's not just us...).

[ubiquitous]

BTW... For insert aging, there are some creative ways of obtaining certain appearances. Bleach is but one method, and not very creative, but it does turn out some interesting results...

I did one for Jetsons that faded from black to a very nice chocolate brown...

[HauteHippie]

It looks like it's been sanded on... But, I know of some owners of genuine vintage Rolex's who also try to duplicate the look of age (it's not just us...).

Not that I don't believe you, but that's rather..... mind boggling.

[HauteHippie]

BTW... For insert aging, there are some creative ways of obtaining certain appearances. Bleach is but one method, and not very creative, but it does turn out some interesting results...

I did one for Jetsons that faded from black to a very nice chocolate brown...

See now those look convincingly war torn.

[ubiquitous]

Oh, I agree with you- That insert missing the pearl does look like it's been... err... 'helped' along in it's aged appearance. Perhaps it's someone's failed attempt at a vintagized insert? The wax envelope with the ref number written on it is also a bit odd...