Rolex "US Marines" question

[mastergod]

Hi,

most of us vaguely know the story of the ROLEX US MARINES, which apparently sold for usd 25,000 at an auction. LINK

Do we KNOW wether it is actually fake or not? Has anyone heard wether the buyer knows?

Something makes me believe that its a highly valuable piece even if its fake.

...Can a fake (but unique) Rolex actually fetch thousands of dollars - if the story is good enough and the watch well executed? Thoughts?

Cheers,

MG

Edited May 13, 2010 by mastergod

[freddy333]

That watch is referenced in someone's Rolex book, so I believe such a (gen) watch does exist. Additionally, Antiquorum is usually pretty good about authenticating watches, so I think it is safe to assume this 1 is the real deal.

The watch has been commented on in TZ since at least since 2004 here & here.

[ubiquitous]

A gen of that watch may exist (afterall, they would need something to model the replication after), however I believe that the consensus is that many of the examples, including the possibility of the Antiquorum sold piece, are indeed forgeries. AQ (along with other auction houses) have had their ups and downs with authenticating certain pieces over time and what's not public information is how many auction sold watches are actually returned post sale because of improper pieces.

As for the question as to whether a unique fake can have intrinsic value; I would say yes, as oft times interesting high quality forgeries and unique duplications become collectible in their own right (and not just watches either)...

[gavidoc]

This watch and the Tudor variant were discussed in detail on Military Watch Forum when it was announced by AQ. Concensus is that the originals were very well made custom watches.

There was a guy in Japan who made custom cases and built his own watches. He actually documented on the web the creation of this watch with a gen Rolex movement and dial from a 5513 IIRC.

IIRC, he had some people ask if they could also have some and he outsourced the cases to a factory who then made a limited amount for themselves to use on the replica market. That is where the "U.S. Marine" designation started to appear on both the Rolex and Tudor variants. Shortly after this he pulled his website. They still pop up from time to time.

The original did not have anything on the caseback. It is all discussed in the MWR archive DVD's from about 6 years ago IIRC.

The main issue with these watches and even the thought of them being prototypes of a potential US military watch is that there is NO US military specification that called a new diver watch that fit the requirements that these meet. Not to mention that even though Tudor Subs were used by US Navy Seals it was BEFORE TR-900's were. Not after. And they were unit purchases, not through a government contract. No Rolex or Tudor was never available through a gov. contract that met a specific military specification.

During the time frame that these watches would have been created there were two different military specifications for dive watches.

1. 1961 MIL-W-22176A spec which is where the Tornek-Rayville 900 comes from.
   
2. 1971 MIL-W-57017 spec which is where the Benrus Type I and Type II comes from.
   

These are the only 2 spec's as issued by the US navy at this time. Not to mention if these were "prototypes" they would not say US Marine on them and would have a number on the back instead such as the original Bulova test samples for the 22176A specification that have popped up and the couple of Type I's that are out there in collector's hands. Nor would they have had bracelets. Nylon straps were standard requirements

The Rolex community might have questions as to whether or not they exist but the Military Watch Community has strong doubts to their authenticity on the information available which is more hten just the Rolex based information.

On a side note: Here is a listing of all submersible dive watch specifications in the US Federal Supply Catalog including two entries for stock Tudor Subs which were cancelled. I got htis from MWR.

01-544-8874

SUUNTO SS005987800

WATCH, DIVER'S DIGITAL, BLUE FACE

NPI

01-544-8873

SUUNTO SS005987500

WATCH, DIVER'S DIGITAL, ORANGE FACE

NPI

01-068-1088 CANCELLED

ROLEX T761000

ROLEX T94110030

WATCH, DIVER'S, 660 FEET 476.42

00-225-1741 CANCELLED

MILITARY STANDARDS MILW50717TYPEIICLASSA

BENRUS MILW50717TYPEIICLASSA

WATCH, SUBMERSIBLE AND NAVIGATION TYPE II, CLASS A

82.52

00-595-5431 DISCONTINUED

MILITARY STANDARDS MIL-W-50717

WATCH, SUBMERSIBLE & NAVIGATION TYPE II, CLASS B

268.52

01-101-6495 CANCELLED

TIMEX 575-001001

WATCH, DIVER'S, ANALOG

559.00

01-469-9094

SEIKO SKX009K

WATCH, DIVER'S

NPI

01-544-0408

GSA SUPPLIER 6645-01-544-0408

WATCH, DIVERS, 300M CHRONOGRAPH

1415.27

20-001-9382

MARATHON WW194007

WATCH, DIVER'S (GSAR)

262.76

21-558-0133

SEIKO SKX173

SEIKO SKX173

MARATHON WW194006

MARATHON 194006

ROLEX 79090

ROLEX 9401/00

WATCH, DIVER'S

339.25

[ubiquitous]

Good detail on this by gavidoc... Several good points made with regard to meeting specification of gov't standard as well as details that should, or should not be present in such a watch.

In addition, I would think that such a rare and limited number issue Rolex with military provenance would have a bit more of a following by the collectors. 5517 MilSubs, for example are quite rare, yet there is a significant amount written about their existence, and a core group of collectors that actively seek out these pieces and discuss them publicly, even if on a limited basis (understandably so). There is no following of any sort at this level or otherwise for the so-called 1690; I would think that with all the factors contributing to what would be a rare military watch, there would be more vintage Rolex collector interest in them if they really were legit.

[Ronin]

I would have to say this is not unlike what "Pro-Hunter" and "Project X" are doing.

Imagine pre-internet / information age the few Pro-Hunters floating around suddenly showing up for the first time online, etc.

What sucks is that Rolex is so 'closed' to giving information. If Rolex were a little more transparent with their products, less people would probably be scammed and these sort of speculations quickly shut down. One of the cool things at WUS is some of the "Official Forums" for companies like DOXA, where you could probably go for an honest response. Guess Rolex is too big for that...

[gavidoc]

Thanks for the props Ubi. I can't take credit at all for this. All my info was taken from info I have on the MWR archives and all the members of MWR deserve the credit.

I also agree with you about the fact that there is NO following for these. If it was real, both the Tudor and Rolex versions would be the rarest military watches EVER that are marked Rolex or Tudor on the dial. More rare then the 5517 Sub, Marine Nationale Subs, and the Marine Nationale Tudors.

One BIG reason these are known and have a following is that there is documentation to back up their authenticity. Rolex in Bexely and even MN documentation.

These? Zilch.

Good detail on this by gavidoc... Several good points made with regard to meeting specification of gov't standard as well as details that should, or should not be present in such a watch.

In addition, I would think that such a rare and limited number issue Rolex with military provenance would have a bit more of a following by the collectors. 5517 MilSubs, for example are quite rare, yet there is a significant amount written about their existence, and a core group of collectors that actively seek out these pieces and discuss them publicly, even if on a limited basis (understandably so). There is no following of any sort at this level or otherwise for the so-called 1690; I would think that with all the factors contributing to what would be a rare military watch, there would be more vintage Rolex collector interest in them if they really were legit.

[mastergod]

Super big thanks for your efforts responding on this, guys!

One more question- if an artist was to create a "non-rolex-made" Rolex as a work of art, for example the Rolex US Marines, and openly said it wasn´t genuine...would it be legal? I´m not talking about a fake 6542 here, but an oddity, something unique, like the US Marines model.

It seems that artists´copyright infringement is generally accepted if only one piece is produced, and the item is sold as a work of art?

For example, modern artists very often use copyrighted stuff in their art. Jeff Koons made - and sold - Pink Panther sculptures, and allegedly lost a lawsuit case against the panther people because MORE THAN ONE was made.

See where I´m going with this jmb?

MG

Edited May 14, 2010 by mastergod

[ubiquitous]

Essentialy, you are asking about a well made, high quality one-off completely unique fantasy model?

Well, the watch would be one of a kind... But it would have to appeal to many and be highly coveted as a collectible; an item's worth is really based on what one would pay for it, right?

Usually, for a Rolex collector the key factor that makes many of the important pieces valuable is their significance in history or heritage. One couldn't really achieve that with a one-off custom fabricated piece without either a false story fabricated around it, or perhaps with provenance of it's creator if they are well known and recognized as a great watchmaker whose creations are highly coveted. Even then, there have been unique pieces fabricated and modified (I just recently saw a listing of a genuine DateJust with functional moonphase added), and for it to really be worth something, someone would have to pay an (undetermined) price for it. I suppose that this is why most things of this nature are sold at auction; it's too difficult to try and establish a price for it otherwise, and an auction would allow the attendants present to determine a price for it by way of bidding. Also, some may think that the major auction house may provide a little more credibility, whereas a listing on an enthusiast's forum or eBay may see it dismissed as nothing more than a fantasy frankenwatch since there's not much documentation to support it's existence otherwise.

There are many rare and unusual pieces out there, even for Rolex; but rare does not always mean valuable...

[Member X]

There are many rare and unusual pieces out there, even for Rolex; but rare does not always mean valuable...

I'll agree with this!

Although I would perhaps add "at the moment..." on the end lol

Look at the Rolex models that didn't sell well and are now sought after and worth $$$$!

If someone is constructing one-offs, who's to say that at some point in the future their work might be highly desired and the early pieces then worth loads?

It's a risk to buy one-off stuff by unknowns, but you never know what the future might bring...

For this reason alone I think it's a good idea to only buy stuff that you like wearing, as even if it's not worth anything in the future, you'll still have a watch you like

[ubiquitous]

On the flip side to that... Look at how many rare bubblebacks there are, and were once worth loads of money (but are no longer)...

Nothing is forever... But as long as there are folks to keep certain things perpetuated, the bubble, no matter how big or small can be sustained for as long as people believe in it

[Member X]

It's all about the hype and selling 'exclusivity' as desirable, I guess - Rolex seem to have cracked it , generally speaking lol

[ubiquitous]

The vintage world is a little different; yes, some exclusivity from the namesake is involved, but many of the sought after pieces are desired for what they represent; a piece of history that cannot be duplicated or re-lived. There are only so many pieces in existence out there of certain models; the volume of such is still fairly large when compared to, say Patek and the like, but as most of these pieces were actual tool watches and used for a purpose (at the time), there are very few of these examples with provenance and in perfect near mint condition today. That makes them rare. Mil spec pieces, exotic dials, red variants etc are all commanding big prices, and there are many reasons for that; some have probably looked to such pieces as an alternative investment vehicle, and some are genuinely interested in the history they represent. However, there is a driving force behind the in-demand watches that isn't present in, say a Day-Date 1803 of the same era (a watch that actually has a commodity value in it's precious metal), so it's not really the name on the dial that makes for an instant collectible. For these vintage pieces, it's not really Rolex driving the market force, but rather the consumer and collector. Rolex would much rather have you buy a new watch than an old one, as they would be a direct benefactor in the new purchase. Personally, I can't really say that many new, modern pieces will be considered collectible either, due to production volume and also thanks to many speculators hoping such pieces will be worth something someday (I have to wonder how many unworn new pieces are sitting in safes or vaults in hopes of having a time capsule piece; probably quite a few I would imagine). With saturation of such mint condition pieces, the future values will likely be worth very little, and for that, I would not call a Modern Rolex a collectible, but rather a wearable consumable.

So to summarize, Rolex's vintage success is in thanks to it's collectors and their following of the brand, specific to certain pieces and examples Rolex's modern success is thanks to their great marketing team

[mastergod]

Good stuff.

I agree that rarity is no guarantee for a high value. I believe the most valuable commodity around is ideas.

If a fantasy Rolex was able to tap into the dreams of clearly defined special-interest consumers with a strong collector-culture, I believe a watch made from aftermarket and custom parts, perhaps a gen movement, would easily sell for more than gens.

Edited May 14, 2010 by mastergod

[ubiquitous]

I suppose it could be possible... But it would depend on how it's 'marketed'. In addition, it should have a strong yet appealing design to all, and should probably be identified as a one off custom piece. If the watch has some sort of value adding significance, who knows. It is impossible to speculate. And quite frankly, I think that many of the collectors with the money to purchase such an item would likely be highly skeptical over such an item. You have to remember that many of them, if they wanted such a unique piece, could probably commission anything on their own as they'd have the resources at their disposal. Most, however are likely looking for something that they would be able to liquidate should the need arise (i.e. a known and documented, immacluate condition vintage of high demand); with a unique custom piece with no history or significance, that would be a difficult item to move, as you'd have to find a very specific buyer willing to pay for such an item. With tastes being unique as well, that could potentially be an impossible feat...

However, an example I should cite that could prove that the right piece with the right provenance could have increased value are the Sultan signed/crested custom commissioned dials. While not completely one off, this is a good example of how provenance can help boost an otherwise standard watch's value...

[mastergod]

Thank you very much for your thoughts on this ubi!

I am afraid you are probably right it would be a highly difficult task to make big bucks making fantasy Rolexes. Still, the US Marines is a highly valuable watch regardless of its authenticity...

[ubiquitous]

Collectors have learned to be extremely cautious on this stuff, and with the ubiquitous accessibility of the Internet, it's much easier (and better) for a discerning collector to do their due diligence as they should. When dollar figures encroach the amounts discussed, doing one's homework is a must. Back in 2002, even though the Internet was available, the collector's infrastructure, networking and knowledge shared and gained on vintage Rolex (or watches in general) was no where near as extensive as it exists today, hence why such an odd and obscure piece as the Marines watch in question probably sold for what it did. Had it emerged and went up for sale today... I somehow doubt it would sell for anywhere near the amount it actually sold for (if at all) in my opinion.

[mastergod]

Collectors have learned to be extremely cautious on this stuff, and with the ubiquitous accessibility of the Internet, it's much easier (and better) for a discerning collector to do their due diligence as they should. When dollar figures encroach the amounts discussed, doing one's homework is a must. Back in 2002, even though the Internet was available, the collector's infrastructure, networking and knowledge shared and gained on vintage Rolex (or watches in general) was no where near as extensive as it exists today, hence why such an odd and obscure piece as the Marines watch in question probably sold for what it did. Had it emerged and went up for sale today... I somehow doubt it would sell for anywhere near the amount it actually sold for (if at all) in my opinion.

Excellent thinking ubi

[ubiquitous]

This has been an excellent topic of discussion, MG!

[freddy333]

One more question- if an artist was to create a "non-rolex-made" Rolex as a work of art, for example the Rolex US Marines, and openly said it wasn´t genuine...would it be legal?

(Assuming the branding on this 'work of art' is a 1:1 accurate representation of the real thing) According to Rolex lawyers (which the US, UK & many other countries' governments rarely disagree with), no. It would not be legal. The words 'copyright infringement' would likely appear within the 1st paragraph of their legal writ against the creator. On the other hand, had you specified another brand or name (other than Rolex/Tudor, etc), then the answer might be different.

For reference, the Campbell's soup company lodged several suits against the artist, Andy Warhol, for his soup can prints. If I remember correctly, because the depictions were graphic representations of Campbell's brand image (& not exact duplications of it), the courts held that there had been no real infringement &, so, Campbells could not claim damages & Warhol was allowed to make & sell his work (without having to pay to use the Campbell's images). Such would probably not be the case for the premise you cited.

[gavidoc]

Ubi is SO right about rare not meaning valuable.

Take for example the Tudor Submariner Rose dial 7016 transitional piece. Of all the crownguard subs (rolex and Tudor) this has got to be the rarest one available. Why? Well for several reasons.

1. Only offered in the first quarter of 1968.

2. Only one stamped with the transitional reference number 7528 inside the caseback

3. Only sub to have a semi-pointed crownguard and flat lug case.

Both Rolex and Tudors had pointed and square crownguard cases. Only the I.68 stamped Tudors had the semicrownguard case with the flat lugs. Here is an image to show what I'm talking about. The Rose 7016 is in the middle. Notice the flat lugs and the semipointed crownguard.

Even with the rarity of this piece, a 1967 dated 7928 still sells for more on the collector's market then this watch. Yet if you compare the two, the cases are COMPLETELY different. Even the later 1968 cased 7016's have a different case. Even a II.68 stamped Tudor case is different like this one. Now this one was way overpolished but it looked like the more modern cases.

Look at the crownguard. Just like the standard crownguard shape and notice how the lugs have more of a curve to them.

It's crazy if you think about it.

The rep makers caught on to the rarity of the rose 7016 quicker then the Gen collectors have.

[VW7888]

Dear Pals,

 

I am glad to find this topic in this website as I was browsing. This had been an unsolved myth with me for the past years.

 

I had one which is exactly the same as the one was aunction with Antiquorum in 2004. I had been trying to find an answer whether is it a fake or genuine but with no avail. To me, knowing the history of the watch and clearing the myth in me is the most important than the value. I am also very angry with Timekeeper forum where the administor barred me as saying that I am posting something which is a fake piece as saying because its from Cambodia which to me I am just trying to clear the doubts and not selling anything in the website. I find that he is ignorant to brush me away without understanding morale of my posting and the history of Cambodia which used to be a French colony for so many years and the invasion of Vietnam and Americans in the past.

 

Back to the topic, I had bought this watch from one of the watch shops in Cambodia which is very popular with Singaporeans and Malaysians. Through the years, I had bought a Rolex Explorer 2 (16570), 1954 AP ladies white gold with diamond bezel and this Rolex U.S Marine which is the last piece I bought from there approximately 2 years ago. The AP was authenticate by the agent in Singapore as a genuine time piece from them and the Explorer 2 is with warranty from Rolex purchase fro Sincere Watch Shop in Singapore. My friend had bought 2 pieces of Rolex Datejust, 2 pieces of 1950's Omega and a Frank Muller. Another friend bought 2 Patek and a GP. All these watches are bought at different occasions as we used to travel there elmost every quarter.

 

As for the Rolex U.S Marine, I went to Rolex agents in Singapore and the Rolex agents initially told me that the serial no. belongs to Rolex product but they could not open the back as it is too tight which I think is [censored]. But they need to send a picture to Rolex Geneva on this model as they had not seen any of this before. So they send a photo of the watch to Rolex HQ in Geneva. The next day I went back and they invited me into a room and responded that Rolex feedback that they do not have this model and this is not by them. I had posted alot of questions to the agents that how if the movement is from Rolex. Further asking the agent in more detail that with a movement from Rolex and the uniqueness of the watch that the winding [censored] is position at 4 O'çlock, is it possible for anyone in this world to modify the Rolex movement precision from 3 to 4 O'çlock. 'But the experience sales woman (mid 50s) who is working for Rolex agents for 21/2 decades kept telling me that even the movement is real, any parts that is fake is still consider fake and keep away from answering the question on the movement as i know that it is not a very glorious things for such a big company, Rolex, to provide prototype for the U.S Marine .  

 

In fact, I had it authenticated by one of the 2nd watch shop in Singapore before and he told me that the movement are from Rolex. That is why I kept pressing questions on the movement to the Rolex agent in Singapore. 

 

I really hope that someone could guide me in clearing clear this myth or where should I be heading for an answer. 

 

Sincerely,

VW

 

 

[buffedupboy]

The US Marines 'rolex' model is 100%, without question a fake fantasy watch. I even know the guys who were being it ..... Talking about rare, and fantasy watches, you can't get away with using a 'trademark' on a similar product. Which is where the world of homages comes in. Check out something like this for rare and homage:

 

http://oceanictime.blogspot.sg/2013/02/anitqua-dss-1953-prototype.html

[ghost]

Hey where can i get one of these? All the links to the HK guy selling it appear to be dead.

 

VW7888, u sound like a Singaporean. Can u pm me the address of said shoppe in Cambodia? I've never been, but this seems like a good reason as any to go!

[panerai153]

I thought I had seen this one before!! i agree with ubi and gavidoc, if these were real, their wi=oukd be a small group of collectors that were all over these "prototypes" Just like the guys who are 5517 fanatics. Small but very knowledgable group of collectors. Never hear or see this one mentioned over on the VRF, which I can guarantee has a already looked at this one sniffed it out and are now holding their noses, hoping it's gone forever. 

 

Seems to me that this particular watch does have a lot of "holes". the biggest thing to me is why would Rolex have US Marines on the caseback and dial? this was a prototype,right? They didn't have a contract, they were just submitting a watch(s) to the US Government for testing. Another thing, if gavidocs records search is correct, why did this watch not appear in one of the specification sheets that were used for all other watch evaluations for the military? Just too many "Maybe's" for me. Anotherstrange thing, the particular watch referenced in this thread sold at the Antiquorium Auction in Geneva in I believe, March 2004, and then resold at the NY auction in December of the same year! Did the buyer try to flip it for a profit, did he just fall out of love with the watch, or possibly did a little birdy whisper in his ear," Hey sucker, you just paid 80K for a watch that is, according to the experts in the vintage Rolex community a fake!!!

 

As  I have said before, It's really to bad that Rolex doesn't have a small highly trained authentication department that has access to all of the records of Rolex watches shipped out. This would put paid to all of the rumors and speculation about some of the more controversial models. Did PanAm actually buy White dial 6542's for their executives, or is this just another "urban legend", did the US Marines prototype exist. They know that answers to all the questions, but... they aren't telling.