1665 Redial Vs. Fake

[docblackrock]

delete

Edited September 27, 2006 by docblackrock

[docblackrock]

Deleted as I reconsidered after checking the dial feet location - 11.30 and 6 is correct for a 1570 but still the description raises an eyebrow and dial feet can always be (re)attached to a rep dial.

Even as a redial, it's not cheap.

Thoughts?

Listing...

[ubiquitous]

Well, the dial feet with regards to these dials is an interesting thing. Obviously, when you look at an MBW dial, the dial feet were once present, but removed as there is evidence of their former presence. That means they had to be sourced from somewhere, possibly for an aftermarket replacement on a genuine 1680 or 1665; if it were a new dial specifically for an MBW, either there would be no evidence of dial feet having been soldered on at one point, or they would be soldered on at ETA positions from the start.

Draw your own conclusions...

[ubiquitous]

Yes- Same as an MBW. The dial characteristics give it away.

[docblackrock]

You see there you go, my first immediate thought was MBW/WM dial, confirmed by looking at my 1665.

But then I thought, aren't these glued via spacer ring, following a 'dial-feet-ectomy'???

Hmmm, regardless I only hope the seller is not a member here, trying to fund his habit

[Tribal]

It's an MBW Dial...

those dials are made to fit Gen rolex movements...

That's the reason why its glued on your MBW's..

Reprints for Gen watches.... the Dials where not produced from Rolex anymore...

Rg tribal