Is this a Gen. insert?

[zaza]

It's offered to me as a Gen. Sea Dweller insert. Seller seems honest, but extra opinion is quite appreciated. Rolex connoisseurs please advise. Many thanks!

[zaza]

The numbers seem too close to the outer rim.. Is this OK? I'm buying this for my 1665 SD build.

Thank you

[superlative]

I could tell if there was a pic of the bottom of it.

[alligoat]

pearl looks good

[zaza]

I could tell if there was a pic of the bottom of it.

Thank you Super, Thank you Alli,

Here is another picture as requested:

[mymanmatt]

The only thing I have been able to pick out between the gen and aftermarket inserts, is this. If you start at the pearl, going to the right, you have minute markers to the fifteen minute mark. The one thing I have noticed is the 9 minute marker is closer to the 10 on the rep, than on the gen. This one looks to close. Thats my 2 cents

[kbh]

I'm not saying it's not gen but it doesn't look much like the gen insert on my SD. The pearl's too small and the numbers and the stick bars aren't centered on the insert. Nor does the printing look as crisp, particularly the 5.

Edited September 11, 2012 by kbh

[zaza]

The only thing I have been able to pick out between the gen and aftermarket inserts, is this. If you start at the pearl, going to the right, you have minute markers to the fifteen minute mark. The one thing I have noticed is the 9 minute marker is closer to the 10 on the rep, than on the gen. This one looks to close. Thats my 2 cents

Thank you Matt. I've run a quick image search on google and tried to apply your observation on a few Genuine SD inserts, and have come to the conclusion that many of them do actually share the same trait: a 9th minute marker that's pretty close to Number 10, and yet they're sold as Genuine (Kindly refer to some pictures I've attached for Ref.)

I'm not saying it's not gen but it doesn't look much like the gen insert on my SD. The pearl's too small and the numbers and the stick bars aren't centered on the insert. Nor does the printing look as crisp, particularly the 5.

Thank you K! It looks like there are indeed many versions of the insert. Also, since the 5512, 5513 and 1680 Genuine inserts do in fact fit a SD 1665, we don't seem to know which is which.. Is it safe to assume that even Rolex doesn't have a certain standard in this regard? I've noticed pearls in different sizes as well, and the numbers/sticks are not always centered to the insert. About crispiness of the print, maybe.. and yet it's a 40 year old print (supposedly). Maybe it's supposed to look this way..

I'm going nuts really, much less frustrated. Actually, I'm beginning to believe that this whole Vintage Rolex trade is nothing but a con job.. Else, how come these very "rare" parts and components are mushrooming like that.. They seem to be everywhere, all labelled as Genuine..

[zaza]

Wait! just noticed that the distance between "1" and "0" of the "10" marker is actually wider on the insert in Question. Could this be of any significance?

[kbh]

Obviously you can't judge or compare a vintage with a new SD insert. I didn't realize from your first post that it was supposedly forty years old. If I was purchasing it, I'd still be concerned about the numbers not being centered though. It would bother me even if it was gen.

[zaza]

Obviously you can't judge or compare a vintage with a new SD insert. I didn't realize from your first post that it was supposedly forty years old. If I was purchasing it, I'd still be concerned about the numbers not being centered though. It would bother me even if it was gen.

Thank you K,

haven't pulled the trigger on it yet. I thought to consult with Gurus of RWG first.

I also don't want to fall victim of the common psychological trap when sometimes you really want to convince yourself it's a Gen. piece. I'm pretty sure you' getting my drift