Are these real Rolexes?

[Thor]

They are advertised as genuine. They look suspecious, but maybe I am just paranoid.

The date window shadow and the tick marks not being centered made me suspecious on this one:

This one looked off to me because of the bezel. The transition of black to red looks like it is not lined up right.

What do you think?

I am no expert but the GMT looks like it has the wrong second hand and the extra hand appears to be to big...could just be the angle of the photo...

Both look pretty good to me!

For the ExpII there are certain points I look for on these:

-Size of the triangle markers on the bezel. Usually the reps have these as too small.

-Engraved numbers on the bezel. Usually these are too thin on the reps.

-Bezel size. This one is of correct diameter.

-GMT hand. Reps typically have these as incorrect length and shape, and in the wrong position on the pinion stack. The triangle should extend out to the minute track.

-Dial font. It's common to see replica dials with the fonts too thick/bold. They should be very precise and crisp.

-Correct Twinlock crown.

For the GMT's, I look at:

-Bezel size. Reps generally have bezels that are too small.

-Dial and printing. Reps typically don't have the same alignment or font precision.

-GMT hand shape and placement. Same as the ExpII.

-Crown size and shape. Again, this should be a Twinlock.

**The bezel insert looks aftermarket.

Is it just me or is the date mag a little weak on these?

Thank you ubiquitous!

You sure have an eye for these. I appreciate the information. There is still a lot I need to learn. :smile:

Date mag isn't weak, it's just right for these models around 2x (Sub mag is stronger at 2.5x)

I'd beg to differ with you Randy about the GMT insert - its oem for sure (the tiny but noticeable font serifs).

In fact the only thing that looks slightly off on either of these two, is the (*edit* inner) CGs on the GMT - they look just a might too chunky and 'unsquared' off (made up word!)

Ahhhh... The GMT's insert may be genuine indeed. I was going off of the color split/transition placement, as well as the size of the fonts. They seemed to be a little 'off', and caught my eye as something that didn't seem right.

***Edit to add images

Note where the transition break is on the '18' in this pic... (borrowed from BT's posting)

And compare with the subject in question:

I'm used to seeing the break just slightly after the '1' at the 18; and further aligned to the right through the '6'.

Not only the 18 is off, but the 6 is not split down the middle.

The GMT is genuine without a doubt. Lots of preowned GMTs have aftermarket inserts so the subtle differences between insert means absolutely nothing. There is also variation between the font used in these inserts. Also the guards have had small variations over the years. I'm pretty sure about the ExpII being genuine too. The dial looks too perfect for a rep... and the luminescent hour markers have the correct blueish appearance.

Both of these watches have been repped well, so it's not easy to see these differences if you haven't examined the models very closely.