ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

sapphire65 · 1 September 2010, 08:01 AM

I am new to this forum, but have been collecting for about 15 years. I just picked up this Day Date, and really like it, but now some of my expert friends tell me it is fake. The reference number is 18118, and the serial is 6,3xx,xxx, placing it around 1980. Except for the unusual bezel, it looks like a nice vintage Pres, and looks real to me.

Any ideas? Need advice...

Thanks,

sapphire65

JPersat · 1 September 2010, 08:09 AM

It looks okay to me, but I am not an expert on the presidents.

Idle Swede · 1 September 2010, 08:15 AM

Are you sure you got the #'s right?

Have you popped the strap and checked the ref. #?

Duster · 1 September 2010, 08:25 AM

A quick search for that #............nothing........I would take to watchmaker
and open it.

sapphire65 · 1 September 2010, 08:30 AM

yes, I have taken the leather strap off. the reference is 18118.

TimeToGo · 1 September 2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapphire65

yes, I have taken the leather strap off. the reference is 18118.

Welcome to the forum!

The reference numbers are no good!

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

Welcome to the forum!

The reference numbers are no good!

--------

Are you sure? Lets not rush to judgement. I think this "may" a good one. Possibly rare. I saw one 6 months or so ago and thought it was straight up. I checked with some friends (one on this board) and all said "Fake". I passed on it.

I have kicking myself ever since, as it really looked correct. It had a funky bezel. I will see if I still have pics on my hard drive.

Can we see pics?

Jeff

Idle Swede · 1 September 2010, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff hess

--------

Are you sure? Lets not rush to judgement. I think this "may" a good one. Possibly rare. I saw one 6 months or so ago and thought it was straight up. I checked with some friends (one on this board) and all said "Fake". I passed on it.

I have kicking myself ever since, as it really looked correct. It had a funky bezel. I will see if I still have pics on my hard drive.

Can we see pics?

Jeff

Hey Jeff,

Are you saying this is a legit ref #?

If it is, it must be extremly rare.

I must say though the watch looks good in the pictures.

TimeToGo · 1 September 2010, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff hess

--------

Are you sure? Lets not rush to judgement. I think this "may" a good one. Possibly rare. I saw one 6 months or so ago and thought it was straight up. I checked with some friends (one on this board) and all said "Fake". I passed on it.

I have kicking myself ever since, as it really looked correct. It had a funky bezel. I will see if I still have pics on my hard drive.

Can we see pics?

Jeff

I am not calling this watch a fake. All I said was the reference numbers were no good.

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 09:46 AM

Took my computer a while to load....

I just saw the pics above.

This looks like the one I saw a few months back.

I remember looking on line for days and could not find anything but it really looked good.

Anyone?

Jeff

TimeToGo · 1 September 2010, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Took my computer a while to load....

I just saw the pics above.

This looks like the one I saw a few months back.

I remember looking on line for days and could not find anything but it really looked good.

Anyone?

Jeff

I think all on this thread believe this to be a nice looking watch, we are only questioning the reference number?

BarkMaster · 2 September 2010, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapphire65

yes, I have taken the leather strap off. the reference is 18118.

Please do this again and take pics of both the serial # and ref #.

Michael M. · 1 September 2010, 09:42 AM

Looks real, but the reference # ?

springer · 1 September 2010, 11:26 AM

As others noted, there is no such reference number, if that is the reference number. While it might look genuine, and have some genuine parts, that does not make the watch genuine, if there is no reference number for this particular watch shown here.

Maybe it's a one-off for the King of Jordon.

Be careful on your posts here!

I'm bidding.

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 11:39 AM

Springer,

As I have often mentioned....Rolex knowledge is not a finite thing.

Research is indeed, a meandering and ongoing and ever changing thing.

You will note that in all of my writings for magazines and "The book", I rarely say "Rolex never" and "this does not exist" and rarely, unless the most blatant of fakes "this is a fake".

One of the reasons I started my Rolex newsletter 'zine and later co-authored the book, was because of dealers loud and assertive pronouncements that a watch I knew to be real "was absolutely fake!"

You "may" be right. But.......it looks good so far.

Jeff

BarkMaster · 1 September 2010, 12:37 PM

Y'all know WAY more than I do, but here are my thoughts...

If that is a valid reference, wouldn't it break down like this:

181 = Day/Date
1 = Finely-engine-turned
8 = 18k YG

Are there any other examples of this "Finely-engine-turned" bezel finish and does it look like the picture?

Many of the reference charts I've seen do not have the "7" = Bark listed, so it wouldn't shock me if these lists didn't include everything...

The way the bezel looks like it could be somewhat consistent with other jewelry finishes of that time period (1980's per the serial #). It's like a smoothed out nugget finish. It's not bark, but I like it! lol

Here's my concern: were there champagne stick dials from that period that are like this one in that it doesn't have the little white dots at the end of the sticks? All the ones I've seen do, but I admittedly have not seen that many and I am by no mean experienced in such matters....

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 12:57 PM

I checked every web site I could and checked all of my reference books...including 1980's Corrigans master catalogues and many other Rolex and watch material I own and I could not find it.

Frustrating.

Jeff

Idle Swede · 1 September 2010, 12:59 PM

To the OP,

could you please show us a "between the lugs" picture?

Idle Swede · 2 September 2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

To the OP,

could you please show us a "between the lugs" picture?

Looks like we're not going to see one.

sapphire65 · 3 September 2010, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

Looks like we're not going to see one.

Idle Swede and 777- I will take this watch out of the bank today and post
pictures that will show the reference number between the lugs. I lost my
internet connection last night and could not continue the discussion...

Thanks for trying to help!

sapphire65

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 777

Y'all know WAY more than I do, but here are my thoughts...

If that is a valid reference, wouldn't it break down like this:

181 = Day/Date
1 = Finely-engine-turned
8 = 18k Yg

The way the bezel looks like it could be somewhat consistent with other jewelry finishes of that time period (1980's per the serial #). It's like a smoothed out nugget finish. It's not bark, but I like it! lol

Here's my concern: were there champagne stick dials from that period that are like this one in that it doesn't have the little white dots at the end of the sticks? All the ones I've seen do, but I admittedly have not seen that many and I am by no mean experienced in such matters....

you are correct about the last number meaning 18k gold case.

The plot thickens...

Jeff

sapphire65 · 2 September 2010, 02:39 AM

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I guess the jury is still out on this one, but I now have some valid clues to help in my research...

Does anyone have any more ideas?

sapphire65

BarkMaster · 2 September 2010, 09:27 AM

Are you going to have it opened and peek inside?

sapphire65 · 3 September 2010, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 777

Are you going to have it opened and peek inside?

Here are pictures that show the reference number and the serial number.

I did have the back off, when I bought it, and the movement is a single-quick 3055.

This should be consistent with the year it was made, around 1980.

regards,

sapphire65

Idle Swede · 3 September 2010, 04:02 AM

Great pictures sapphire.

Thanks for posting them.

sapphire65 · 3 September 2010, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

Great pictures sapphire.

Thanks for posting them.

It took awhile, but the macro nailed it.

What do you think?

sapphire65

Idle Swede · 3 September 2010, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapphire65

It took awhile, but the macro nailed it.

What do you think?

sapphire65

I think it looks perfectly legit specially since you've checked the movement as well.

What puzzles me though is that I can't find any info regarding the ref #.

JJ Irani · 3 September 2010, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapphire65

Here are pictures that show the reference number and the serial number.

I did have the back off, when I bought it, and the movement is a single-quick 3055.

This should be consistent with the year it was made, around 1980.

regards,

sapphire65

That serial no. dates back to around 1980-1981.

My very first Rolex was a TT DJ and the serial no. was 6308050 purchased brand new in Oct. 1980 from an AD.

JJ

jeff hess · 3 September 2010, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapphire65

Here are pictures that show the reference number and the serial number.

I did have the back off, when I bought it, and the movement is a single-quick 3055.

This should be consistent with the year it was made, around 1980.

regards,

sapphire65

----------

That is the EXACT watch I was offered about a year ago! I swore it was correct but let a good friend (and an "expert on this board whom I asked about it) talk me out of it. Both said it was fake. I still felt it was right though and I guess I should have followed my sixth sense!

Jeff

Can I ask where you bought it?

Idle Swede · 3 September 2010, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff hess

----------

That is the EXACT watch I was offered about a year ago! I swore it was correct but let a good friend (and an "expert on this board whom I asked about it) talk me out of it. Both said it was fake. I still felt it was right though and I guess I should have followed my sixth sense!

Jeff

Can I ask where you bought it?

You should have asked Larry, he's the only expert I trust when it comes to DD's.

What was the asking price for it Jeff?

1 September 2010, 11:26 AM	#14
springer 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: jP Location: Texas Watch: GMT-MASTER Posts: 17,124	As others noted, there is no such reference number, if that is the reference number. While it might look genuine, and have some genuine parts, that does not make the watch genuine, if there is no reference number for this particular watch shown here. Maybe it's a one-off for the King of Jordon. Be careful on your posts here! I'm bidding. __________________ Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics.

1 September 2010, 12:37 PM	#16
BarkMaster "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Texas Watch: 18078 YG DD Posts: 7,962	Y'all know WAY more than I do, but here are my thoughts... If that is a valid reference, wouldn't it break down like this: 181 = Day/Date 1 = Finely-engine-turned 8 = 18k YG Are there any other examples of this "Finely-engine-turned" bezel finish and does it look like the picture? Many of the reference charts I've seen do not have the "7" = Bark listed, so it wouldn't shock me if these lists didn't include everything... The way the bezel looks like it could be somewhat consistent with other jewelry finishes of that time period (1980's per the serial #). It's like a smoothed out nugget finish. It's not bark, but I like it! lol Here's my concern: were there champagne stick dials from that period that are like this one in that it doesn't have the little white dots at the end of the sticks? All the ones I've seen do, but I admittedly have not seen that many and I am by no mean experienced in such matters.... __________________ BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK

2 September 2010, 09:27 AM	#23
BarkMaster "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Texas Watch: 18078 YG DD Posts: 7,962	Are you going to have it opened and peek inside? __________________ BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK

1 September 2010, 08:09 AM	#2
JPersat "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Jarrett Location: San Antonio TX Watch: ing everybody Posts: 1,515	It looks okay to me, but I am not an expert on the presidents.

1 September 2010, 08:15 AM	#3
Idle Swede Suspended Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Leo Location: Boca Raton Posts: 13,820	Are you sure you got the #'s right? Have you popped the strap and checked the ref. #?

1 September 2010, 08:25 AM	#4
Duster "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: Bob Location: los angeles,Ca. Watch: ss rolex sub date Posts: 138	A quick search for that #............nothing........I would take to watchmaker and open it.

1 September 2010, 08:30 AM	#5
sapphire65 Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: florida Posts: 16	yes, I have taken the leather strap off. the reference is 18118.

1 September 2010, 09:46 AM	#10
jeff hess "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Jeffrey P Hess Location: florida Watch: Patek and Ball Posts: 516	Took my computer a while to load.... I just saw the pics above. This looks like the one I saw a few months back. I remember looking on line for days and could not find anything but it really looked good. Anyone? Jeff

1 September 2010, 09:42 AM	#13
Michael M. Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Newport Beach, CA Posts: 8,391	Looks real, but the reference # ?

1 September 2010, 11:39 AM	#15
jeff hess "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Jeffrey P Hess Location: florida Watch: Patek and Ball Posts: 516	Springer, As I have often mentioned....Rolex knowledge is not a finite thing. Research is indeed, a meandering and ongoing and ever changing thing. You will note that in all of my writings for magazines and "The book", I rarely say "Rolex never" and "this does not exist" and rarely, unless the most blatant of fakes "this is a fake". One of the reasons I started my Rolex newsletter 'zine and later co-authored the book, was because of dealers loud and assertive pronouncements that a watch I knew to be real "was absolutely fake!" You "may" be right. But.......it looks good so far. Jeff

1 September 2010, 12:57 PM	#17
jeff hess "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Jeffrey P Hess Location: florida Watch: Patek and Ball Posts: 516	I checked every web site I could and checked all of my reference books...including 1980's Corrigans master catalogues and many other Rolex and watch material I own and I could not find it. Frustrating. Jeff

1 September 2010, 12:59 PM	#18
Idle Swede Suspended Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Leo Location: Boca Raton Posts: 13,820	To the OP, could you please show us a "between the lugs" picture?

2 September 2010, 02:39 AM	#22
sapphire65 Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: florida Posts: 16	Thanks for all the feedback so far. I guess the jury is still out on this one, but I now have some valid clues to help in my research... Does anyone have any more ideas? sapphire65

3 September 2010, 04:02 AM	#25
Idle Swede Suspended Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Leo Location: Boca Raton Posts: 13,820	Great pictures sapphire. Thanks for posting them.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)