mezzanine Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I was wondering if those collectors out there that have handled or seen a genuine Rolex bracelet could describe some of the differences between the gen and replica bracelets. This thread is an ironic follow-up to an earlier thread about using a genuine Rolex bracelet on vintage Rolex 1680/1665 projects. The seller's pictures of the watch in question are in the first post of the thread: http://www.rwg.cc/members/index.php?showtopic=67131 I recently purchased a 78360, but when I took it to my watchsmith to have it installed on my SeaDweller, he told me that it wasn't authentic!! This was especially surprising considering that I believed I could observe a definite difference in quality between the genuine bracelet and the reps I'd previously been exposed to. I don't think there are a set of 580 endlinks on the market that are repped nearly as good as gen, so the idea that the endlinks would be fake seems implausible. Ultimately, that's not what causes me to think that the watchsmith is probably incorrect. It's the finish and feel of the gen. It's very hard for me to imagine a rep bracelet matching the feel, even if it was well oiled and given a pro refinishing bracelet treatment. At the same time, it's hard to articulate that general impression in terms of specific qualities inclusive to each. Is it the higher grade steel? The machining of the individual metal pieces? The machining or fit of the screws that keep everything together looking tight and feeling loose? In our hobby you're always asking yourself about the difference between parts. Given my difficulty in articulating the differences, it makes me wonder whether the actual differences are smaller than I realize and I'm trying to believe there's something substantial there when there isn't. It felt from an 'immediate impression' perspective that the difference was huge, but now I'm curious about subjecting that impression to something more skeptical as far as attributing reasons for that supposed difference. I would almost describe the impression or experience as being similar to listening with a high end sound system without a decent amp, and then plugging in a good amp and the music just seems to come alive or be more animated, but trying to describe the effect it in acoustic terms can make you start sounding like you're into astrology or something... Anyways, I wish I had some pics to post of the actual bracelet, but those will have to come a little later on in the thread because of a misplaced USB cord... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llsteve80 Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) If you have a jewelery scale and a beaker with graduated lines, in cm preferably, you can test the density and find out the specific gravity, 916L stainless will have a higher SG than the 316L used in most reps. Then again, you could just weigh it I guess. They can trick you by having solid midlinks, to add weight to the rep bracelet, but if you wanted to try it to see if it is dense enough for a gen, you can take off 2 links, clean them and drop them in a beaker with some water in it and write down the difference, i.e., the volume of the links. *make sure there are no air bubbles on them, or in the screw holes* Then weigh the 2 links in grams, and divide that by the volume and you'll get a number greater than 1 (hopefully). Try it again with some for sure rep links, and you'll see a big difference in specific gravity. you might be able to try it with the whole bracelet, but I think too many air bubbles will be in there and throw the results off too much. Edited February 17, 2008 by llsteve80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I have seen reps and gens. Currently, the reps are pretty good overall at the higher end but there have been some curious developments. I have purchased rep Subs and GMT Masters of the vintage variety with the intention of yanking the oyster strap and going with a leather or nylon strap, particularly at this time of the year. That's just my own preference even if a bit unusual. What I have noticed, from my admittedly small sample, is that the bracelets have been improving faster than the watches. Your linked photos show a very nice bracelet that I would say is a gen. I still think that it is. As good as the reps are getting, they are not there yet, for the reasons you have mentioned. Perhaps your watchsmith is being a bit cranky. I wouldn't rule out that someone was having a bad day. Let's call it a gen bracelet and move on from there. Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 If you have both bracelets in front of you, a trained eye can tell the difference not only in the fit & finish between them, but also in the gage (thickness) of metal used (the gens are made from slightly higher gage metal) & the style & shape of the link screws. Remove a link screw from the same link on both bracelets & look closely at the screw where the threaded section ends & the un-threaded shaft begins. On the gen screws, there is a gentle slope between the threads & the shaft. On most rep & aftermarket screws, there is a definite right angle between them. Also, the threading is noticeably more precisely cut than on the reps (rep on top, gen on bottom) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carlsbadrolex Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I would be willing to send you my known gen bracelet for comparison BUT its a much newer bracelet. I dont know if comparing a vintage bracelet to a new one would help you any. I dont even know that taking it to an AD would help... Most of the AD's around here are of very little help for anything. Regardless of what you find, I would buy it from you for what you paid... Even if it were a rep (which after looking at the pics again I HIGHLY DOUBT). I think you did very well with this buy, and that your watch maker is incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mezzanine Posted February 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Thanks for the input guys, I'll try to do a visual inspection for the stuff that Freddy mentioned and report back on what I see... The thing that caught his attention was the rolex symbol on the clasp. It's very faint. Also, he said that he believed the engraving on the inside of the clasp was stamped instead of engraved (or something...?). I don't know if that sounds consistent... Thanks for the offer on the comparison, CBR- I'm thinking that I could go down to the closest AD (which actually isn't very close) worst case scenario, but even if I were to receive the other 'supposedly gen' bracelet that I have currently en route I might have enough of a basis for comparison. My gut tells me it's real, but this guy is highly experienced and has an extremely trained eye. *edit- I just did a quick visual inspection of the bracelet, and I don't think it's fake. The coronet emblem on the clasp looks like it's almost embedded in the clasp, rather than engraved, and I think that's what the watchsmith noticed and caused him to believe it was fake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmons3d Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I recently purchased an original 1971 9315 bracelet for a vintage gen 1680 and took it in to the local watchsmith (who also sells numerous used Rolexes) to be installed. They insisted it was a fake (pointing out the folded links as the giveaway) but installed it anyway. They didn't have a clue what they were talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Take a few good, clear macro pictures of the bracelet, especially the markings on the polished sections & top/side views of the clasp & post them on the Rolex forum on TZ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 My rolex guy says the first thing to check to authenticate a bracelet is the screws... just like freddy said. Its a for sure "tell" as to the authenticity. dizz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 The thing that caught his attention was the rolex symbol on the clasp. It's very faint. If a bracelet has been polished a few times, the crown on the clasp won't be as crisp as it was originally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 My gut tells me it's real, but this guy is highly experienced and has an extremely trained eye. But you haven't asked your expert watchsmith why he thinks it is a fake. At this point in the thread, it's time for that question and the response. Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mezzanine Posted February 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 But you haven't asked your expert watchsmith why he thinks it is a fake. At this point in the thread, it's time for that question and the response. Carl Check the posts above for the answer to the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 I'm not sure that your watchsmith knows what he's talking about. Based on those seller's pics ref'd from the other thread (though not great pics), your bracelet looks fine to me. Here are a couple of pics of my own genuine 78360 bracelet with 93150 clasp; it's seen a lot of use with some of the mid links having been worn down at the edges (causing them to slide back and forth on the pins): How's this for a worn down coronet? The base of the crown is almost gone... If you can get me some better images- Say, one of the bottom of the bracelet at the head (to see the stampings clearer), one of the clasp stampings, etc. I forget what a VE clasp dates to, but off the top of my head, I think it's 1980's-ish.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 P.S. I'd be curious to know... On your clasp, to the left of the ROLEX logo, is the 'REGISTERED' stamping off alignment with the 'SWISS MADE' stamping? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 Ubi's pictures just reminded me of something else to look for. If you compare a gen clasp to a rep (at least every rep that I have seen), the grooves that make up the rectangle sections are slightly deeper & wider on the gen. This is another of those 'fit & finish' issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mezzanine Posted February 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 Thanks for the additional feedback about what to check- I'm going to use these suggestions and I'll update the thread hopefully in a couple of hours with a report about what I'm able to discover.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mezzanine Posted February 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 So fellas, I've been able to take a close look at one of the screws, but you want to know what's sad? I would need a loupe to be able to visually see the threads closely enough to verify the threading... I'm pretty sure it's gen. Here are some pics... Again, the part that caught the attention of the watchsmith was the rolex coronet emblem on the clasp being too recessed and 'light'. He also said the printing on the inside of the clasp should be engraved rather than 'stamped'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mezzanine Posted February 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 The more I look at that coronet on the back of the clasp, the more I wonder whether he could be onto something. It just looks strange. I don't think I've ever seen one like that- but perhaps one of the experts will be able to say for sure. I have another one of these bracelets en route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 Hmmmm... A bit difficult to determine still. Any chance for a clear, no flash pic of the clasp blades/signing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 And a good, clear picture of the side of the clasp would help as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mezzanine Posted February 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 Hey guys, thanks for the help on this. Every time I think I'm in the clear, and it's a gen, I come across something else that makes me wonder... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 I can see why your watchmaker thinks it is a rep bracelet. However, everything except the clasp looks like the real thing to me. The only part I would question is the clasp. Unfortunately, I do not have a 78360 on hand to make a direct comparison, but the pressings & engravings on the clasp do not look quite right to me. Yes, the crown on the outer clasp may have been worn down by repeated polishings. However, if that was the case, I would expect to see at least a little wear on the 2 inside polished sections as well. There is none. But, more importantly, the Rolex insignia that is pressed into your clasp looks different than any of the pressings on any of my gens. Here is a better picture of the pressed-in insignia on your clasp So either I am wrong about the clasp & the bracelet is 100% gen (likely) or yours is the 2nd bracelet I have seen where someone fit a rep clasp to an otherwise gen bracelet (less likely). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilty Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 I have two 78350 bracelets. One buckle looks identical to your buckle, and the other looks different. Both from a reliable source, so I'm not worried if they are gen or not. I also have two 78360 bracelets, and they both are different than yours. One is a new 78360 and the other is a vintage on my 1016. Tough call, but I would pretty much have to say yours is a gen. Are you able to stop into Rolex Canada and have them verify? I think they are up in Bloor-Yorkville area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsons Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 Hey guys, thanks for the help on this. Every time I think I'm in the clear, and it's a gen, I come across something else that makes me wonder... I have the exact same rep clasp and the micro adjustment holes on yours are considerably larger in diameter as are the pins. This would lead me to believe that you have a gen part. Perhaps a rep clasp like this one exists but I have not seen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAMman Posted February 19, 2008 Report Share Posted February 19, 2008 Boy am I glad that I collect both rep and gen Panerai rather than Rolex. This is just much too difficult for a simple lad like me. BTW, having a couple of gen Omegas I have always thought that Rolex bracelets feel like fakes, even the new examples in the ADs. 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.