ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
25 March 2020, 12:46 PM | #31 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,511
|
Quote:
if it states "eta" with eta movement number, then its clearly not the genuine item either. I'll look around and see what I have recorded previously. Usually its just a 4 digit number starting with 2. Though I have also seen no movement digit engraving at all. Just the rotor saying tudor with the number of jewels called out. |
|
25 March 2020, 02:03 PM | #32 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: richmond, va
Posts: 541
|
Quote:
here's link to the actual post https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...7&postcount=20 THe 2461 is the other correct mvmt |
|
25 March 2020, 03:15 PM | #33 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,511
|
Quote:
|
|
25 March 2020, 05:21 PM | #34 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australie
Posts: 31
|
strange dates / reference / case no
My main issue - can a c.1969 reference have a c.1959-60 case number ?
Is there a definitive position on this anywhere ? |
25 March 2020, 07:56 PM | #36 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,511
|
Quote:
the rotor should have a right angled finish on the genuine piece. See below: |
|
25 March 2020, 08:00 PM | #37 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,511
|
Quote:
Just checked, I have a couple of Tudors that are more mid-1960s with 40XXXX serial and onwards. Glad you returned it. |
|
25 March 2020, 09:13 PM | #38 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Canada
Watch: 1680
Posts: 1,396
|
|
25 March 2020, 10:32 PM | #39 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Real Name: AJ
Location: USA
Watch: Swiss
Posts: 5,205
|
Not a vintage Tudor expert but not so sure it’s fake. There are many Inconsistencies among Rolex vintage models throughout the 1960s and 1970s. That’s largely because Rolex did not perfect their QC production process until around the 1980s. I have seen that with some early Tudors as well. But if you’re uncomfortable living with it smart to return it.
|
25 March 2020, 10:37 PM | #40 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: East coast
Posts: 6,591
|
It’s franken watch at best....and looks like a turd...
|
26 March 2020, 12:42 AM | #41 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: richmond, va
Posts: 541
|
Quote:
here's a link to one showing the same "I.68" production date with the 7528 marking - clik on the image to pull up the full gallery of shots, then clik on the caseback to expand it https://watchestobuy.com/shop/tudorsubmariner7528-htm/ here's another, with the same "7528" marked caseback showing "I.68" production that was up for sale here on this forum a few weeks ago https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=685706 And another "I.68" w/caseback marked "7528" - caseback isn't pictured but seller does note it in his descript https://forums.watchuseek.com/f29/19...r-4551371.html Here's one with caseback marked "IV.68" but no model marking - there's actually quite a few on chrono24.com advertised as 1969 & 1970 but their casebacks are showing 1968 production, with serial numbers also indicating 1967-69 https://www.chrono24.com/tudor/subma...id12218998.htm and another with caseback showing "7528" model marking and "I.68" production date http://www.vipchrono.com/en/producto...al-box-papers/ THere are more Not sure what was going on with TUdor back then, but all the casebacks with the "7528" model marking seem to show the same "I.68" production date - and curiously, i've never actually seen a caseback showing "7016" model marking. It's possible Tudor, after cranking out a ton of 7528 casebacks, decided to drop actually introducing a 7528 model and used the casebacks on the 7016s What confuses the issue is Tudor themselves saying the 7016 first appeared in their catalog in 1969 - but "first appearing in their catalog" doesn't necessarily mean first year of production https://www.tudorwatch.com/magazine/...s-1969-to-1999 I've also never seen a 7016 showing a production date (no matter what the caseback model marking was) earlier than 1968, which puts that serial number in conflict with the model's years of production, unless the serial number was a mistake, like i said earlier, by a hungover mechanic operating the pentograph or reducing engraver. |
|
26 March 2020, 12:53 AM | #42 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The Empire State
Watch: 1966 Rolex 5513
Posts: 3,419
|
Quote:
That is the crux of this quandary. |
|
26 March 2020, 01:05 AM | #43 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: richmond, va
Posts: 541
|
Quote:
that serial number and the "virgin" metal between the lugs where there should be some rub marks are bothersome, but damn that dial & hands look good |
|
26 March 2020, 02:24 AM | #44 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Montreal
Watch: The Habs pick 1st!
Posts: 3,589
|
I still wonder what the hammer price was
|
26 March 2020, 06:08 AM | #45 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Per
Location: Sweden
Watch: Gilt Rolex
Posts: 2,946
|
Yeah. So my guess is that the watch is good but the first digit is more likely a 7 or something. Not a 3. Then the serial range would make sense.
__________________
Instagram: @perj123 |
26 March 2020, 06:55 AM | #46 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,511
|
Quote:
|
|
26 March 2020, 07:12 AM | #47 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: montreal
Posts: 622
|
Most auction are also listed online for online bidding, maybe it would turn up in a google search
__________________
5513,16613,16710,116233,9411/0 |
26 March 2020, 07:13 AM | #48 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: RedSox Nation
Watch: U Talkn Bout Wilis
Posts: 5,425
|
I think we have a mix of parts here and frankly the photos muck things up as much as they fix things.
IMO: Dial (80%) and Movement 2483 are legit 7016, Maybe insert but not a good look at the 40/50 Case / Caseback / hands / bezel are fake. These photos are horrible so I am willing to revise my assessment with better photos. Otherwise it is a hard pass. Orchi's post had a ton of failures in it - remember - according to Orchi, every Semi Pointed Crown Guard is a fake.
__________________
I'm a sailor peg. And I've lost my leg. Climbing up the top sails. I've lost my leg! |
26 March 2020, 07:42 AM | #49 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,511
|
Quote:
I challenge the movement too - look at the rotor carefully. The shape of it is wrong. Its franken at best. |
|
26 March 2020, 08:08 AM | #50 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: richmond, va
Posts: 541
|
|
26 March 2020, 08:14 AM | #51 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,511
|
yeah i'm with you but your reference to some being 1968 caseback is less relevant to the discussion here, no?
For example, its not uncommon for things to be made a year in advance before it gets "released" officially so Tudor's "1969" date of first issuance is probably still right. |
26 March 2020, 09:14 AM | #52 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: richmond, va
Posts: 541
|
Quote:
How being produced "I.68" does not make it 1968 production is, well, a little illogical to me. We're talking the 1st quarter of 1968, not the last. It's more likely the 7016 went into production too late to be included in the 1968 catalog - print lead times back then were long, hell even in the mid 1990s, before the digital age, it was 5-6 week lead times to get a display ad into print in publications that were mailed out 3 times a month - and an equal amount of time to kill or stop an ad running, and that was for a black/white single page ad, not a multi-page color catalog. |
|
26 March 2020, 09:16 AM | #53 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: RedSox Nation
Watch: U Talkn Bout Wilis
Posts: 5,425
|
Quote:
But with a little closer look the 25 RUBIES SWISS MADE on the AutoWind is wrong - like those older non-2483s that the strip down and re-engrave in VN.
__________________
I'm a sailor peg. And I've lost my leg. Climbing up the top sails. I've lost my leg! |
|
26 March 2020, 09:43 AM | #54 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The Empire State
Watch: 1966 Rolex 5513
Posts: 3,419
|
Quote:
What does this have to do w the OP’s watch here? Why not start a new thread on the topic of catalogue issue dates v. caseback date stamps? |
|
26 March 2020, 10:07 AM | #55 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: richmond, va
Posts: 541
|
actually i'm not sure he knows what his point is or was
he first argued with me, or appeared to, re the 8-10 gap between S/N and the late 60s production. When i pointed out to him he and i were in agreement on that issue, he jumped or changed his point to defending 1969 as year of production. Go up to his post at #46 and follow it from there, you'll see what i mean |
26 March 2020, 10:46 AM | #56 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,511
|
Quote:
Not here for a pissing contest but for the record, my original point to you is around the big gap between serial number on the watch and the "known" year of production for the 7016. That hasn't changed and your last few responses are dragging us into a whole new topic. Regarding my post #33, I was replying to the movement itself, i.e., my bad for not picking up on the OP's picture of the movement which vaguely indicated the "2483" engraving, in response to my earlier post #31 questioning it. Anyway, Kingface clearly followed the trail so I think you should re-read the thread again. Ok lets get back on track. |
|
26 March 2020, 11:23 AM | #57 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: richmond, va
Posts: 541
|
as Kingface66 said - start a new thread on the subject, but try to stay consistent
|
26 March 2020, 12:22 PM | #58 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,511
|
|
26 March 2020, 12:32 PM | #59 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The Empire State
Watch: 1966 Rolex 5513
Posts: 3,419
|
|
26 March 2020, 01:22 PM | #60 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: richmond, va
Posts: 541
|
Quote:
i was just confirming what kingface66 suggested but pls explain to me why you would argue with me about the disparity between the serial number's date and the late 60s production of the watch - then when i point out to you that i agreed with that position, why you just bulldozed past it and went straight to re-arguing the production date pls, answer me that cause for the life of me i can't comprehend it unless you speed read my posts and then try to bluff your way past being wrong do try to stay on focus with my question, in bold above, because that response of your's earlier really displays a serious disconnect on your part kingface66 - i was simply confirming your suggestion....but it appears alwaysthere re-introducing & restating the illogical position that even though a watch was mfgr'd in 1968 doesn't mean production occurred in 1968, well somehow that re-introduction of the debate is acceptable and your suggestion doesn't apply. Yeah, that makes sense. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.