Fake Tudor 7016 experience yesterday

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by larryccf

Aren't casebacks marked "C.R.S." casebacks that have been replaced at servicing?

Glad you mentioned that about the rotor - i'd meant to check my files as i thought i recognized that rotor - it's apparently or was apparently a common rotor for that period -
here are shots of it on an ETA 2773 (9401 mvmt)



Then on a 2824 mvmt



and on a 2783 mvmt



the only movement i couldn't a shot of the rotor was the 2483, but the above 3 mvmts are all 25 jewel movements, same as the 2483 - i'd guess that rotor is correct for the 2483. Key word is "guess"

FWIW

Whats the exact marking on the OP watch's movement?

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.

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Whats the exact marking on the OP watch's movement?

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.

i actually copied and pasted the OP's movement picture with an arrow pointing at the mvmt # - unfortunately it's under that wheel (not sure if that's the balance wheel) but you can barely make out 2483 or what looks to be 2483, which would be one of the two correct mvmts

here's link to the actual post https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...7&postcount=20

THe 2461 is the other correct mvmt

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by larryccf

i actually copied and pasted the OP's movement picture with an arrow pointing at the mvmt # - unfortunately it's under that wheel (not sure if that's the balance wheel) but you can barely make out 2483 or what looks to be 2483, which would be one of the two correct mvmts

here's link to the actual post https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...7&postcount=20

THe 2461 is the other correct mvmt

Sorry I must have missed that. Yes if that's the case, then the movement is likely okay.

[heuermonaco]

My main issue - can a c.1969 reference have a c.1959-60 case number ?

Is there a definitive position on this anywhere ?

[roh123]

Doesn’t the first 3 look re-engraved? Or is it just the pic?

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by larryccf

i actually copied and pasted the OP's movement picture with an arrow pointing at the mvmt # - unfortunately it's under that wheel (not sure if that's the balance wheel) but you can barely make out 2483 or what looks to be 2483, which would be one of the two correct mvmts

here's link to the actual post https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...7&postcount=20

THe 2461 is the other correct mvmt

Actually upon reflection, OP's movement doesn't look right.

the rotor should have a right angled finish on the genuine piece. See below:

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by heuermonaco

My main issue - can a c.1969 reference have a c.1959-60 case number ?

Is there a definitive position on this anywhere ?

No it doesn't look right. The timing of the model number doesn't match the serial era. I think that is definitive from various member's point of view. The 7016 started around 1969...and 30XXXX serial is from way before.

Just checked, I have a couple of Tudors that are more mid-1960s with 40XXXX serial and onwards. Glad you returned it.

[Styles Bitchley]

Originally Posted by roh123

Doesn’t the first 3 look re-engraved? Or is it just the pic?

Yeah. The STA and 30 look like they were “fixed” or something. Like there was some damage to the left side or something.

[AJMarcus]

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.

[1665fan]

It’s franken watch at best....and looks like a turd...

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

No it doesn't look right. The timing of the model number doesn't match the serial era. I think that is definitive from various member's point of view. The 7016 started around 1969...and 30XXXX serial is from way before.

Just checked, I have a couple of Tudors that are more mid-1960s with 40XXXX serial and onwards. Glad you returned it.

For the record, besides my caseback showing a 1968 production date,
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.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by larryccf

For the record, besides my caseback showing a 1968 production date,
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"
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


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 mean first year of production https://www.tudorwatch.com/magazine/...s-1969-to-1999

I think we're confusing the issue here.Which is: Why does a case with a serial number from around 1960 have a reference number of a watch that didn't appear until around 1969?
That is the crux of this quandary.

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

I think we're confusing the issue here.Which is: Why does a case with a serial number from around 1960 have a reference number of a watch that didn't appear until around 1969?
That is the crux of this quandary.

and i cited that as well, but my issue is with folks repeatedly stating 1969 for earliest date of production when the links i posted show 1968

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

[harry in montreal]

I still wonder what the hammer price was

[roh123]

Originally Posted by Styles Bitchley

Yeah. The STA and 30 look like they were “fixed” or something. Like there was some damage to the left side or something.

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.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by larryccf

and i cited that as well, but my issue is with folks repeatedly stating 1969 for earliest date of production when the links i posted show 1968

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

You can understand it if it’s one or two years off but 10 years off isn’t right which is what others are saying.

[Kingsking]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

I still wonder what the hammer price was

Most auction are also listed online for online bidding, maybe it would turn up in a google search

[linesiders]

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.

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

I think you need to read a string of posts by an old member Orchi on how to spot a good Shield Tudor sub. The E in stainless steel.... are all 3 horizontal lines the same length? The middle one should be shorter.

Orchi's post had a ton of failures in it - remember - according to Orchi, every Semi Pointed Crown Guard is a fake.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by linesiders

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.

Hi J,

I challenge the movement too - look at the rotor carefully. The shape of it is wrong. Its franken at best.

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

You can understand it if it’s one or two years off but 10 years off isn’t right which is what others are saying.

you did get that i agree with the 8 to 10 yr disparity, right?

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by larryccf

you did get that i agree with the 8 to 10 yr disparity, right?

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.

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

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.

Go back to that link i gave from Tudor's web, Tudor said "In the 1969 catalogue, two new TUDOR Submariner references appeared, the 7016 and 7021." That's not a declaration of date of production.

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.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Hi J,

I challenge the movement too - look at the rotor carefully. The shape of it is wrong. Its franken at best.

That's possible, horned rotor -v- flat rotor. Good eye. I was looking at a couple other things that look OK. I was not digging into much because the photos suck so badly ; )

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.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by larryccf

Go back to that link i gave from Tudor's web, Tudor said "In the 1969 catalogue, two new TUDOR Submariner references appeared, the 7016 and 7021." That's not a declaration of date of production.

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.

I think you’re missing Alwayshere’s point.
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?

[larryccf]

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

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by larryccf

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

Look this is side tracking us all.

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.

[larryccf]

as Kingface66 said - start a new thread on the subject, but try to stay consistent

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by larryccf

as Kingface66 said - start a new thread on the subject, but try to stay consistent

ah....he was referring to you going off track.

man, you really need to read these posts properly.... i'm slightly shocked you haven't connected the dots yet.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

ah....he was referring to you going off track.

Correct.

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

ah....he was referring to you going off track.

man, you really need to read these posts properly.... i'm slightly shocked you haven't connected the dots yet.

actually, you're the one that went off track

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.