aeroguy Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 Hey guys, this is one of mine so I do know the real answer! Be sure to give your reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshoot Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 Looks real (or a damn good rep) to me but I would need to see more pics at different angles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star69 Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 hard to tell with only one pic - the dial-printing is a little blurry - could be the photo... insert-color is a little dark - could be the photo... my tip - gen or a very very nice rep ... Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkdc Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 hard to tell with only one pic - the dial-printing is a little blurry - could be the photo... insert-color is a little dark - could be the photo... my tip - gen or a very very nice rep ... Frank Looks real. Solid end link looks very well constructed with sharp margins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www_watch Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) Solid end link looks very well constructed with sharp margins. Genuine. I agree 100%. Haven't seen a rep with SELs that nice. Edited October 3, 2006 by www_watch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 Nice gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gioarmani Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 Definitely a gen. For the most part I agree about the SEL's, but some are pretty darn sharp. Josh's & EL's band were: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 I have my suspicions that it is fake. The cg's are questionable but the lighting and angle could change my opinion if differently presented. Heavily modded or a Joshua perfect model wiht gen insert and crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 Defenetly Gen!!! Nice watch RG tribal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubFrog Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 Woa...Gen or Rep...I'll take it. Very nice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munk Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 Surely a gen the bezel looks very smooth, flatter n nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) The only possible problem I have with this watch is the crystal and small, a bit wrongly shaped cyclops. Could be the picture too... it's not the greatest shot. But I'd say it's genuine too. Case, pearl and bracelet all look good. Edited October 3, 2006 by By-Tor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroguy Posted October 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 Well, I guess I forgot who I was dealing with The main resson I read these boards is I've found no better WIS group anywhere You guys are right, it's a genuine. I thought someone would get twisted up by the "SWISS MADE" being over only 3 ticks. I've not seen many LV's like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 Well, I just looked at three 16610's at bernardwatch.com, not LV's, but a 2003, 2005 and one BNIB and the Swiss Made in three ticks varies- sometimes the outside ticks (4&5) are longer and sometimes they're shorter. Just goes to show, you can count on Rolex to mix things up. Look at the "4" on the bezel insert- the new one is pointed, the old one just a couple of years back was blocky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bklm1234 Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) Judging from the pic (could be the pic), fake but a real good one. The CGs give it away. Look at the real thing (snagged and blown up from Rolex official website) and yours (flipped 90 degrees). Your CGs look a little short. From this angle, the outside of top CG may look straight, but that of the bottom should show some curvature. It looks like a straight line to me. And the CGs should be more pointy. Again it could be the picture. Edited October 4, 2006 by bklm1234 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmex Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 Judging from the pic (could be the pic), fake but a real good one. The CGs give it away. Look at the real thing (snagged and blown up from Rolex official website) and yours (flipped 90 degrees). Your CGs look a little short. From this angle, the outside of top CG may look straight, but that of the bottom should show some curvature. It looks like a straight line to me. And the CGs should be more pointy. Again it could be the picture. I guess you missed the boat. It's genuine. The owner just admitted it. It looks genuine too. There may be a little bit of variety in the finishing of the same Rolex gen watches, explaining your observation. One word: if it looks "harmonious," then it's likely a gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bklm1234 Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 I guess you missed the boat. It's genuine. The owner just admitted it. It looks genuine too. There may be a little bit of variety in the finishing of the same Rolex gen watches, explaining your observation. One word: if it looks "harmonious," then it's likely a gen. How did I miss reading aeroguy's confession? Anyway, oh well, it's the pic. It's too dark at the tip of the CGs, making the curvature unnoticeable and making the CGs look short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 How did I miss reading aeroguy's confession? Anyway, oh well, it's the pic. It's too dark at the tip of the CGs, making the curvature unnoticeable and making the CGs look short. I didn't see the confession either - but I see it now. Despite being a lousy picture (and perhaps that's why he calls it tricky), I concentrated mostly on the dial and specifically the silver borders around the markers. They're too thick on every rep dial I've ever seen, and they look correct on this one. And then looking at the SELs and the CGs (even though they're in shadows), these details also look believable. So, even though I thought the insert was ever so slightly questionable, I've got to call it real. I just have to assume that the questionable details stem from the poor picture quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polynomial Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 chee guys ya all wrong, it is surely fake, the time is wrong good one ha? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pop73 Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 (edited) One thing that I've always noticed about LV reps that I've never seen mentioned or addressed is the BEVELED edges on the case lugs, (CLEARLY visible and different in the side by side photos above). Every genuine LV I've seen has those polished beveled edges and I've NEVER seen a rep with them. I can't be the only person to notice this. The bevel is slight where the bezel meets and then tapers to a larger bevel as the lugs curve toward the ends. I instantly thought the initial photo was a rep due to the case not having the beveled edges. Edited December 31, 2006 by pop73 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchy Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 (edited) Why are people saying "poor picture quality" and such? I think its a fine picture, very nice even! If you mean in terms of the time set blocking the letters and such and not being able to see the fine details, ok. But in terms of clarity, its a very nice pic. Edited January 1, 2007 by Dutchy 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.