Pick the fake...

[Thor]

I would not have been able to tell, but then again, I'm

freshly infected with the RWG virus. Did not even try

to get one of them RWG watches. So I'm excited to

see how the terminally ill are going to perform.

B is the genuine.

That was an easy one!

B=gen

position of the = sign

More than just the '=' gives this one away.

I'm a newb and figured that one out.

B for sure, but what the hell has happened to the print on dial A.? Looks like someone has put chemicals on it lol

Yes the bottom lines of all the text on the 'A' pic are a bit too straight & perfect - remember we are talking 60's 70's typograph machines here

B has bit off font, and the "m" is bold, yeah this is a simple case indeed. "A" looks to have some reflection, bad pic I suppose.

"B" is genuine and the picture is from:-

My Webpage

A = water based... hence the streaking?!?!

I'd say A is gen only with a "mulfunctioning" technician

I have no idea which one is gen so I did a little research. I found the following pic with description:

The Unique Prototype Double Red Sea-Dweller/Submariner

Model No.: 1665 Circa 1967 Serial Number 1.7 million range.

I believe this dial configuration to be unique, well I have never seen one like it, and its discovery will help us all to understand the Rolex think tank behind the final version of the Double Red Sea-Dweller dial.

Definitely a different font. Notice how the 6 looks like the Panerai font.

Note the serif used for the font. The size... The position. It's all different. There are 5 - 6 known dials for the Double Red 1665 that are confirmed. Each has it's own unique characteristic.

Ubi, you know quite a bit about this subject, so let me ask you: Is the dial on the MBW DRSD correct? I bought one recently (a slightly older model), and it does not seem to match the 5 dial types that I've seen documented. Thanks.

In my opinion, the MBW DRSD dial is not like any of the documented 5 known dials in existance. It's closest to the MKIV and MKV, however it has some major differences between the two-

MKIV:

The fonts used are all the same; most notably the 'ft' and 'm' in the depth ratings. However, note the shape of the coronet at 12:00 and compare the shape of the crown itself, as well as the '0' at the bottom of the crown. It's quite a bit different. The MBW is much taller, and more slender, whereas the genuine crown is a bit more flared towards the top, and the '0' is more like a sideways 'D'. And, of course, under a loupe, the printing would not be like genuine (i.e. font printing comprised of tiny dots).

From a distance, this dial appears to be the closest, in my opinion (and probably the dial type the MBW was most likely based off of). Especially the alignment of the fonts. Aside from the small details, this one is really the closest.

MKV:

This one has similar fonts as well, except the 'FT' and m' for the depth ratings are tall, and italicized. Under a loupe, this one would appear most like the MBW in terms of printing.

Of course, it is ridiculous to think that one would scrutinize as much to go so far as to use a loupe. So, I believe that the MKIV dial is the one the MBW is based from (and would probably pass as). Of course, when dealing with a vintage collector, most will spot the difference anways (they may think it to be a redial'.

Thanks, Randy. That confirms my research. I had found it to be most similar to the Mark V, except for the italics. It doesn't bother me at all, and I don't plan to do anything about it...I was just curious.

If the V had the straight and small 'ft' and 'm' on the depth rating, it would be near identical :happy:

b for sure the red is too bright on the other.