JoJo35 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 http://cgi.ebay.fr/Rolex-Vintage-Rare-Red-...id=p3286.c0.m14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyd3 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 It looks a little odd. The bracelet is wrong for sure ... one side is a 78360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRasta Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Not to mention that the "680" in "1680" looks like it was engraved by hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carlsbadrolex Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Take a look at the 1680 engraving.... YEAH RIGHT, I could do a better 680 with a $15 engraving tool from the hard ware store. The first few numbers in the serial number look strange also. I dont know about if its gen or not... but it sure has been played with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Dial looks correct at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJo35 Posted September 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Dial looks correct at least. That's what I thought. Lots of expensive stuff on this watch; however, I agree with others that the stampings look shaky at best. The bracelet is ridiculous too. Like a gen enthusiast friend once said, "If you find one thing wrong, chances are you'll find something else, and then another, etc" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Yeah, lots of questionable parts on that watch. Interesting that they'd install a rare dial like that into an otherwise sloppy product. The strange things that people do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow_ Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 yea this is weird... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 I'd be very surprised if JewelersOnTime sold a fake Submariner. The are a very, very respectable Ebay seller. Questionable parts... maybe. But the watch looks genuine to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 They may not know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolex001 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Oh I'd eat a broom with stick if that's a fake... certainly a gen case - and the caseback "engraving" is correctly stamped as it should be. A bracelet with one 78360 half is nothing special - I have seen first owner watches with 9315 clasp and 7836 links. I see you talk about the lug engraving. Indeed, it looks odd - but the font of the lug writing and numbers is correct for a 3Mil case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 There's no doubt that there are some correct parts here... But there are some that don't seem right as well. My thoughts, after looking at this one is that it's either a poorly restored piece, or maybe one that was put together. The lug engraving looks terrible, however. With vintages, it's always difficult to say for certain what a watch has seen in it's history and lifetime. This is why provenance is so important for collectors, and why pieces lacking sell for less. Of course, no B&P or service history on this one, I see. I think the thing that I'd question the most is why the seller is claiming 'all original' when clearly it is not. Not with that crystal (wrong profile) and bracelet mismatch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolex001 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Ubi - that is definitely a genuine Tropic 127. A nice example at that. It's not the current RSC version but the older, short bevelled version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Yes, definitely a gen 127, but not the one that came originally on that watch For a 3M red, it should have the 45 degree angle bevel; the newer revision that is currently being issued by the RSC's have the taller, straight profile with small bevel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Old 127 with tall bevel: New 127 with small bevel: The old is what should be on a watch that is claimed to be 'all original', in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolex001 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Well, your statement just sounded a bit like it was a fake crystal. Understood it now... anyway - interesting you point out that the large bevel is an earlier production. European quotes are always like one should go for the small bevel - as it is the old style. I must admit though, that I have seen a small beveled 127 in a new Rolex packaging (PET bag with green writing). Edit: If we are discussing all-originial state here - it doesn't make sense as there is something not 100% about this watch - even though it is highly overpriced. The dial is nice though - and worse a couple of Thousands alone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Agreed, though I bring up the 'All Original' issue as that is what the seller has stated on his auction. Now, the term can be interpreted in several ways; for me, all original means just that- All parts on the watch are as it came when new- No replacements. However, someone else's opinion on it might be 'all original Rolex parts'; e.g. no aftermarket parts fitted, but replacement parts are okay since it's all genuine. In my opinion, and this is my standpoint for vintage Rolex examples, a watch stated as all original should be just that; if it's not (and clearly this watch isn't), then it's misrepresented. With that said, I have to wonder what else is not as it would seem Yes, I know... It's a matter of semantics. But that's how I interpreted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolex001 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 You are totally right - "all original" should definitely mean that is is in a state of 100% delivery type parts. This one definitely isn't - but it probably is an original watch - with no fake stuff fitted... even though - a crystal is a two sided thing - I guess there is no such thing that is replaced as often as a crystal - this happens during each and every service. A Tritium insert - I understand - it is mucho $$$ - but a crystal? You can still get these 127's for a good price - and the 39 Superdomes came down too (or are stable). The best ones with "all originals" are those rare bees that come with original sales bill and all the returned spare parts from the service - you see these from time to time, but they are rare - and they have one more thing in common - a huge price tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Yes indeed, kind sir Provenance is key! And folks who are seriously looking for a full meal deal watch (full B&P, service history papers, and an even bigger plus for returned old parts) end up paying the premium for such pieces, though the peace of mind is usually worth it for such examples. Those are the vault queens That said, I think the watch in question here is far from it's €14,000 price tag... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carlsbadrolex Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 I just dont buy the case engraving... ANd when something (imho) as that is SO WRONG it just adds question to the rest of the piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolex001 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Vault queen nails it - sadly. If such a full meal deal was in my possession I would hate to see it at my bank's. Putting such a thign up for display would be just amazing. The piece in the auction is at 14000$ I think - meaning it's around 10000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Oops! Yes... Misread the price. $14k US/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakemaster Posted September 13, 2008 Report Share Posted September 13, 2008 Man I wish I had that much spare time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolex001 Posted September 13, 2008 Report Share Posted September 13, 2008 Wrong nickname, wrong forum - that's what it's about here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now