Quote:
Originally Posted by bay_area_kid
Not quite. You can't make a judgement based on that alone. This may not be a 114270 but it can still be a genuine 214270 mk 1.
Let's ignore the dial for a second.
Just by looking at the case shape, the lugs look much wider. 114270 have more narrow lugs. Also note the diameter of the case relative to the lug width. Both references have 20mm lug widths but you can see in the 4th picture how much wider it is compared with the bracelet. With the 114270, the diameter vs lug width ratio is not as drastic.
So back to the dial.
I agree with what someone else above mentioned about it being a 214270 Mk 1. The location of "EXPLORER" on the bottom vs the older 114270 having it right below "OYSTER PERPETUAL", the rehaut engraving, the fully white gold 3-6-9 on the 214270 vs paint filled ones on the older 114270, the t-rex hands, etc.
It could simply be that someone mislabeled this as a 2004 instead of something more recent. Because all the evidence points to a 214270.
Where did the pictures come from?
|
The photos were sent to me, I’ll have the watch tomorrow in my hand and can take/send better pics etc.
Let me know if there are any specific picture of certain parts can help?
Before someone says, I’m not buying this, as the watch belongs to an acquaintance of mine and I’m trying to find out a) whether it’s authentic and b) its value.