TwoTone Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighDef Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Look like a rep to me. The "ROLEX" text is small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alextor Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 My (uneducated) guess is an MBW with an 'ubinsert' (the date is just a tad misaligned...but the font is excellent) ... how do I know...I have one just like that...(thanks to Randy ) In any case, (real uber-MBW or real rolex...- this is not in the rep category for sure-) a beautiful piece...the white 1680 is to my eyes nicer than the coveted red counterpart, just my .02! Cheers Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 good topic tt , put us some better pics up closer to the dial and the side shot and that will help many that r trying to figure it out ok , if u want i can post my genuine for u right beside it for a comparison shot, joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighDef Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 cmon man,,say something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Keep in mind the details... 1. dial 2. crown 3. crown guards 4. insert and bezel 5. lugs Draw your own conclusions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chronomat123 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 I'd say gen... those lugs don't look MBW... and that bezel looks nicely scalloped. Ubi, my 5513 should be here Wednesday-- fingers crossed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighDef Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Keep in mind the details... 1. dial 2. crown 3. crown guards 4. insert and bezel 5. lugs Draw your own conclusions... Okay,,,100% rep then. Not even a Franken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Okay... Here are the first two... 1. dial- Genuine luminova RSC replacement 2. crown -Genuine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rag9fx Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 you have great eyes Randy! i didn't even spot the 'swiss' on the dial! hmmm luminova... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 3. 4. 5. ?? What do you guys say? I have my mind made up on these points... But let's hear your guys' thoughts you have great eyes Randy! i didn't even spot the 'swiss' on the dial! hmmm luminova... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Edit: I'm almost certain it's genuine. Late 70'S model? If not, it's hell of a rep. But then again I'm not a vintage expert... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 my clue for u would be see the rust or dirt where the crystal edges r ? what would your conclusion be for this? lol joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 I'm going with gen even though the CGs don't look quite right. I'm fairly certain the hands are gen (but if they're ETA-compatible hands I MUST find out where to get a set) and therefore so is the movement. Now I suppose someone could have put a gen movement in an MBW case, but..... why? And the dial is definitely gen. So I say gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 I'm going with gen even though the CGs don't look quite right. I'm fairly certain the hands are gen (but if they're ETA-compatible hands I MUST find out where to get a set) and therefore so is the movement. Now I suppose someone could have put a gen movement in an MBW case, but..... why? And the dial is definitely gen. So I say gen. hmmm < hands r definitely gen.? uh oh could they be gen. tudor hands for eta movment? lol joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 hmmm < hands r definitely gen.? uh oh could they be gen. tudor hands for eta movment? Nope. Tudor hands don't look exactly like Rolex hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 now do u see a difference between genuine and not hands? r u sure they r genuine hands now? and please im just showing u something and letting u figure it out yourself ok so dont take it as im being mean cause im really not ok joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 now do u see a difference between genuine and not hands? r u sure they r genuine hands now? and please im just showing u something and letting u figure it out yourself ok so dont take it as im being mean cause im really not ok joe I'm not even sure what your question is... but TwoTone's watch has gen Rolex hands on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 i just read u say his hands r definitely genuine and was wondering how u came to that conclusion and was showing u a picture of a genuine set of hands for u to compare to and see if u see what i see is all just trying to make it fun for all of us is all joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 i just read u say his hands r definitely genuine and was wondering how u came to that conclusion and was showing u a picture of a genuine set of hands for u to compare to and see if u see what i see is all Alot of rep hands look like the ones you posted, so that one is harder if indeed it is a gen (and I haven't looked at it for more than a glance). But staying on topic, I have yet to see any rep hands that look like the ones on the watch TWO TONE posted!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 i just read u say his hands r definitely genuine Oh and BTW, read again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 wow im sry u took offense , i guess since u did i will tell u about the pic im showing u and why , didnt mean to make u angry i was simply just trying to make u see what i saw and we have some fun , but i see u took offense and i apologize basically the hand deal for me is if it is the genuine set of hands that came with the watch the part in the mercedes(Y) will be clearly wider than the others , it is not a big detail but for me i would say those hands on two tones is not genuine just because they look alot like the tudor hands i have worked with , which r better looking to me as well but still not as fat in the mercedes part (i call it the Y part) the only thing that could throw my theory here is , if they r new replacments then they could still be called genuine i suppose , im just used to seeing true genuines in the 70's have the fatter (Y) btw the pic is of my genuine , the only thing that was replaced on it is the pearl and it is genuine just not acrylic , i was told the pearl that was original looked so crappy so they decided to replace it (and also the crystal was replaced as well ) (and only two replacement links were put in the bracelet but i took them off because it fit me perfectly without them , lol ), but it does have an awesome twinlock genuine and all original crown and tube on it , which r not seen around much anymore and many were changed out when sent it for servicing , anyway i will leave u with this and not chime in anymore being u took offense , enjoy and hope u have a happy new year joe oh yeah one more thing , it could be the picture as well, if we had a shot of it from the side and angled it would be more simple to see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 I'll bite, and I will say it is real. if I am wrong, what's the harm in it? I am not a sub pro by any mean anyway, Randy will know based on all the questions that I asked him. One thing that I thought that if it is a rep, it took a some effort to pay attention to detail as far as the age of the edge of the bezel ring, that is one heck of a job if it turns out to be a rep. other than that, I thought the datewheel looked gen, cause it is bolder. speaking of which, is the datewheel project done randy? sorry have not hopped on the forum much in the past 2 weeks, been out to Asia, but now I am back full force I hope. well, TT, when will the information be unveiled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Chief- You are correct... Hands are genuine. There is no doubt about that. Rolex used hands from several different sources, as they did with dials, so there may be variation from one watch to another. 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.