freddy333 Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 You are good if you can spot a franken, but you are dangerous when you can cite the sources of the parts used to assemble the watch. This (generally reliable) seller describes this watch as an 'Authentic Rolex GMT master 6542' What do you think? 120331075299 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vizsladog Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 I think it looks old..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Well I'm no expert but I have never seen a dial look quite like that on a 6542. The edges of the indices outlined looks weird to me. I know some are but these seem a little too boldly "outlined". The hands look right as does the bezel assembly though. I wasn't aware of a red date font either. In any event, this is the only fairly complete resource link about the 6542 watches I have ever found on the web... http://doubleredseadweller.com/gmt.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast68 Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Well I'm no expert but I have never seen a dial look quite like that on a 6542. The edges of the indices outlined looks weird to me. I know some are but these seem a little too boldly "outlined". The hands look right as does the bezel assembly though. I wasn't aware of a red date font either. In any event, this is the only fairly complete resource link about the 6542 watches I have ever found on the web... http://doubleredseadweller.com/gmt.htm I am no expert either, but I do beleive that early GMTs' did have "roulette" date wheels (alternating black and red numbers). There are a couple of things I don't like about the dial, the Rolex fonts looks weird (the "O" looks abnormally wide) and the white outline around the date window. I am not saying its not authentic, just that its like nothing I have ever seen before on an early GMT. Other than that, everything looks the part. I'll put it this way, if someone were to offer it to me, I'd be glad to give it a good home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJo35 Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Dial is incorrect. Bezel is incorrect. Insert is incorrect. Like they would say on the gen forum, one thing wrong leads to another, which questions the integrity of the entire watch. ps: should I name where those parts came from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spa Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 I don't think that my recycle bin deserves 15.000$ anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolfire Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Dial is incorrect. Bezel is incorrect. Insert is incorrect. Like they would say on the gen forum, one thing wrong leads to another, which questions the integrity of the entire watch. ps: should I name where those parts came from? Yes please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted November 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 ps: should I name where those parts came from? Yes, give it a shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJo35 Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Dial appears to be NDT. Plastic insert is obviously aftermarket. Bezel appears to be too low profile, causing the crystal to appear too high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 If it's an NDT dial, someone customized it with the outlined date window! http://ndtradingcorp.com/zen/index.php?mai...;products_id=70 But certainly, I'd agree that the dial doesn't look right. Have the guys at TZ or VFR dissected it yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 And making it all a lot more difficult is the poor photography (no, I didn't say it was on purpose). The barrel distortion from using a too-short focal length just upsets the whole look. The resolution and color are a joke. Most of us here on the board get far better offhand photos than this, without a lot of effort. To me, the overall carelessness of the photography is the most disturbing aspect. Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted November 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 Some good hits, but this may help - The bezel/insert are from MY (same parts I have on my 6542). The dial is a relumed rep watch dial, but I cannot find the rep watch seller's site right now. A clue to the mismatch between the dial & case is that the hands are too long for the dial. I had considered using the same dial, but I ultimately decided against it after receiving a better dial from an ebay seller....& then decided against using that dial after receiving MY's, which is the best aftermarket 6542 I have found (including NDTrading's). The crystal could be gen, but may also be Helfands or another aftermarket pressing. The case is NDTrading with poorly drilled lug holes (some of the holes look too new & not drilled very evenly). Finally, there is usually a reason why an 'Authentic Rolex GMT master 6542' is being offered for sale without an equally Authentic Rolex GMT master 6542 bracelet.....& it is not because the bracelet got lost or damaged (there are no accurate aftermarket vintage bracelets for the 6542 & the seller did not want to spend several hundred dollars on a gen). This is a case where God is in the details 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.