rionrlty Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Hello Rolex fans, I need some help. I am not a Rolex expert. I’m actually more into Breitling and IWC at this time, but when I first started collecting reps I liked Rolex best and still have a few. I have two watches here, a Yachtmaster Rolesium, and Submariner 16610. These were actually my first 2 reps ever and I bought them 15 years or more ago, maybe closer to 20. I’d been collecting vintage watches for quite a while and when I first got the internet, back in the 90s sometime, I blundered onto a web site selling Rolex reps. That was the only brand they carried and by today’s standards they were very expensive. I believe I paid over $500 each for these. I also had a gold Yachtmaster that I sold on the forum a while back and found out after the fact that it may have been an MBK or MBW, which I understand are premium brands. It had very thick gold plating and I paid over $700 for it. They both have ETA 25J movements, but I don’t know exactly which model number and I don’t have a tool to open them right now. As I mentioned earlier I am a novice when it comes to Rolex, so I need your opinions on what I have here. If it’s typical junk then so be it. You’re not going to hurt my feelings, but if it’s anything special I would like to know that too. I should mention that on the Sub the insert got all scratched up over the years and replaced it with one I had laying around off a cheap rep. If it is worth it, I plan to replace it with a better quality one. Anyway I appreciate your input. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markiemark Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Im not gonna say its junk. Perhaps the quality is good, where the accuracy is not. The sub has too thick dial marker edges, font too thick, wrong case shape, wrong bezel teeth, insert font waaaay to thick, and not very crisp either, and cyclops should read 2.5x Yachtmaster has a dial color that is waaaaaaaaay of, insert should look a bit blasted, also not quite crisp, and bracelet should have polished midlinks and the clasp as well. And Im probably forgetting a bunch of things, but then again, these were made 20 years ago and Im typing on a bumby bus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irolexu Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 I would say the sub is pretty bad but again maybe that's as good as they were 20 years ago. I actually still wear my very first rep. Of course it's been heavily modded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rionrlty Posted March 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 markiemark, Thanks for the comments. It would seem the Sub is not very good. With the YM the pictures could be part of the problem though. The mid links on the bracelet and clasp are polished, but I can see in the picture that it doesn't show up that well. Perhaps that's why the dial color appears off too. I had an opportunity to compare it to a gen Rholesium quite a few years ago and the dial color and texture seemed very close at the time. The insert does in fact have a matt/blasted background with polished raised numerals and it looked a lot like the gen too, except the color was off because the original was made of platinum. Where the bezel marker just to the right of the triangle is nicked you can see brass showing through so while the rest of the watch is SS the bezel insert is obviously plated, probably to make it look more like platinum. The ETA movements should be worth something although they probably need servicing after this long. Oddly, although confirmed gen ETA, neither of these has been all that accurate, even when new. They probably weren't regulated properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markiemark Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Ok, I see! But the dial of the YM looks almost yellow in the pic.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKTime Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 To be honest they look pretty good considering how old they are. Reps have come along way in recent years. You can get a whole lot more for your money these days though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rionrlty Posted March 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Hi Markiemark, I want to thank you for commenting on my Rolex 16610 Sub that I posted on the Rolex forum. I you don’t mind I would like to discuss your comments a little more. Please understand that I don’t want to be argumentative, but just want to understand the exact inaccuracies that you brought to light. I have a copy of “The Rolex Story” by Mondani, which is supposed to be the definitive authority on Rolex configuration. In case you haven’t seen it there are many very detailed pictures of actual confirmed original examples to use for comparison. On page 126-129 is the 16610 that I have. I bought this is the late 90s so it has the through drilled lug holes but solid end links on the bracelet. The end links have slots, but on the watch with drilled lug holes they should not so this may be a slight inaccuracy, unless it was made right at the transition when they had already started using the new end links with slots. According to Mondani this was known to happen. Regarding your comment on the borders of the markers being too wide; In comparing it with large picture on page 127 of the book I cannot find much difference in appearance to the original at all. In addition the font on the dial appears to be spot on in both size and location with one exception. The crown seems to be slightly closer to the 12 marker than the original, maybe ½ mm or less. Everything else seems to be exactly correct. Concerning your comment that the case is the wrong shape; Again, comparing it with the side and top view pictures on page 127 and 128 it appears to be extremely close with just 2 minor descrepancies that I can see. It’s hard to tell for sure but the crown guards may be slightly too thick at the ends and the holes in the lugs appear to be too close to the end of the lug. However, I have noticed this same variance on a number of frankens pictured on the forum that are considered high quality. Concerning your comment on the bezel knurls being wrong: I’ve looked and I’ve looked but I just can’t see it. I’ve counted and it has exactly the same number as the gen. and to me they look the same shape. The end links and lugs fit extremely well, better than the gen, but appear otherwise almost exact. Concerning the bezel insert; As I stated in the description I liberated this from a very cheap rep because the original was pretty scratched up. I believe you said the font was too thick and shaped wrong on it. I looked at the scratched original and sure enough the font was thinner. Imagine my surprise when I looked at the picture in Mondani’s book and found it matched this newer, cheap bezel almost exactly. What do you make of that? The pearl on the cheap bezel looks closer to gen than any other I’ve seen. As I said this is not argumentative. I really want to hear your response on this. Sincerely, Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffindodger Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 they look very nice to me. i would glad to have them. 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.