Fake Tudor 7016 experience yesterday

[heuermonaco]

Thought I'd share so others might learn from my experience.

**if anyone can PM me an email address - I cant seem to add pictures; maybe you can upload these for me please **

First up- I was lucky to have a relationship with the auctioneers who have most decently ensured immediate restitution and as such I shall not suffer a loss.

Scenario

I secured a vintage Tudor at a live auction in my city. The auctioneer's rules meant only a visual inspection was permitted, no examination of movement or serials/reference numbers. Bracelet must remain on so no examining numbers, caseback cannot be removed; sold as is where is.

I was OK with this given the piece and apparent aging/originality.

On the Floor

I bid and bid handsomely live on the auction floor (surprising really but this will have been their last live attended auction for some time but distancing was in effect and folks were cautious). I bid to win- if you're bidding you're bidding to buy it in my view. I won the item, but whilst a handsome price it was a price which allowed for some servicing and still under market (whatever this shall be in the future).

There was good competition, maybe 5 or 6 bidders. I won.

Settling up

I paid, received the watch and headed home.

Studying the piece

My notes at first close examination at my desk:

- scuffed crystal- plexi
- good case with chamfers showing
- even aging on dial - what can be seen through crystal; doesn't appear to be refinished. some slight brush marks possibly visible through 10x glass- at this point of examination just appears to be aging
- Large Rolex crown
- T SWISS T
- faded and attractive purple//grey bezel insert
- period Movado open link divers bracelet with divers extension - non original
- bracelet taken off to see numbers; Rolex style bracelet pins
- caseback loose - loose enough to apply pressure and open

---> Caseback

- 'ORIGINAL OYSTER CASE BY ROLEX GENEVA'
- no inner month/year date; marked "C.R.S." and Montres Tudor etc
- grimy and dirty
- markings looked OK, although there was a noticeable "ridge" between the opening teeth on the caseback, and the signed "bubble" section inwards of this, of the caseback itself

---> Movement

- "Tudor AUTO-PRINCE" signed on the rotor- looked OK
- grimy and dirty

---> Ref no

- clearly signed '7016' - no wear to area around number, surprising given ill fitting Movado bracelet endlink

---> Serial No

- STAINLESS STEEL 30623X
- again, no wear to area around number, surprising given ill fitting Movado bracelet endlink

So now I have the info

- google '7016' and case number
- case number is c.1959-60
- it seems the '7016' reference was first produced 1969 onwards
**slight PANIC**
- more research
- more research
- google '1959' and '7016'
- google '1960' and '7016'
- google 'Rolex' 'Tudor' 'CRS' caseback
- discuss with trusted watchmaker

**OK; so this could be my first instance in over 25 years of collecting with what might be a "fake" **

My conclusions

- fortunately I have the mobile no of the principal at the auction house. I have an auction business myself and have a great relationship with this fellow in particular- important in any business but especially so in this instance
- I printed my materials, I messaged him and headed back in to explain my findings

Outcome

- they were fantastic. We met briefly in their boardroom and he listened to my findings and unequivocally offered a full refund there and then
- interestingly, he said someone following the auction had called him just prior to my arrival and offered his opinion that it didn't seem "quite right" upon the callers earlier inspection.
- whilst respecting their client confidentiality, upon asking I was told it came from an estate of various items and no conclusion (rightly) by the auctioneer was made to the veracity of it or otherwise

- so, all's well that ends well

Reflections

- I have to say I was surprised at how aged and patinated the piece looked as indeed it has to be a fake. The piece had that attractive aged and well used but original look we all like
- do the research !
- it seems some of these may have appeared via Vietnam (stated respectfully and without malice to this place and people) 20 years ago
- act quickly if in doubt. Or upon inspection, if in doubt don't proceed
- Rolex would have confiscated it I'd imagine if I sent it to them for a service
- it's been said before, if it's too good to be true it isn't- but often who dares wins and I like to be counter cyclical and tread where others wont; but with this philosophy one must be prepared to double back immediately and act to put remedial actions in place if possible

Finally, I share this as a salute to the very decent operator who heard my concerns and honoured them, and as a watchout for all others out there. I consider myself pretty experienced but this one caught me. And with several other bidders, it could have caught them.

[Dan S]

Are you absolutely sure the first digit was a "3"? To post a photo, you just need to crop and re-size properly and upload from the Go Advanced features.

[heuermonaco]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Are you absolutely sure the first digit was a "3"? To post a photo, you just need to crop and re-size properly and upload from the Go Advanced features.

Yes- unequivocally and clearly a '3' . I cannot seem to resize pics enough :(

[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.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by heuermonaco

Yes- unequivocally and clearly a '3' . I cannot seem to resize pics enough :(

why dont you send your pics to one of us and we an post it for you.

[Mattjames84]

Unfortunately, there are fakes out there that are actually that good, built so well that you cant tell without very thorough research.. it's my guess that the watch in question was built for personal use and never intended to be sold if it was from an estate of someone that passed

[Wahlberg]

So all parts were fake or some still real?

[AJMarcus]

This is hard to follow without pics.

[fmc000]

Exactly.

[heuermonaco]

Trying again

[heuermonaco]

Pic

[heuermonaco]

Pic

[heuermonaco]

Pic

[heuermonaco]

Pic

[heuermonaco]

Pic

[heuermonaco]

Pic

[harry in montreal]

Looks good to me. Newer insert. I was expecting a 390 movement

[1665fan]

Barn find or toilet find? Glad they took it back you got lucky

[Claven2]

I'm NOT a tudor sub expert, but I'm not convinced it's a fake. If someone here can point out what I'm missing, I'd be obliged.

[larryccf]

i agree it's a fake,with that serial number (unless the tech operating the engraving machine was still hung over from the weekend partying) but on the inside shot of the caseback, i'll throw 2 cents in - i've never seen, to my recollection a 7016 caseback showing "7016" on the interior surface. Only reason i've watched them, mine shows "7528" with "1.68" BUt i can't say i've seen them all

production date on mine is correct for my watch's S/N 624xxx - here's a shot of the caseback interior side



Only reason i've watched the 7016 casebacks, when mine showed the "7528" i noticed others showing the same model # - in fact there was one here on the for sale page a few weeks back showing the same "7528"

Only reason i figured Tudor would offer the 7016 model concurrent with the 7928 was maybe they were discontinuing the FEF390 mvmt and the 7016 was the "newer, slicker, racier" model

here's a shot of my movement with the movement number highlited - mine's a 2461 mvmt, but the 7016 also used a 2483 mvmt that was a 25 jewel mvmt, so it was probably for the non-US market



here's your movement shot



it looks like, but i'm not 100% sure as the mvmt number is partially blocked by that wheel, but your movement looks like it was the 2483 mvmt so whoever faked it, at least faked it with the correct mvmt.

What's also odd, the font style of your "7016" engraving, closely matches or somewhat matches the font style on mine - the "6" looks identical but the "7" has a slightly less agressively curved vertical leg


FWIW

[heuermonaco]

My issue was

A 1969 and onwards reference 7016 on one side of the case

With

A 3xx xxx case serial on the other side which would date it to 1959-60

[Mattjames84]

Looks pretty well built, I wouldnt mind buying it as a fake if the price reflected it.. mind pointing me in the seller's direction?

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by heuermonaco

My issue was

A 1969 and onwards reference 7016 on one side of the case

With

A 3xx xxx case serial on the other side which would date it to 1959-60

i'm not faulting your returning it - if it'd been me, i'd have done the same, even if the serial number was a mistake by a hungover mechanic.

But so you know, that stuff does happen - i used to deal with high end (engraved) browning shotguns, back when Brownings were collectible. One day i had three of the same model shotgun, and was comparing them - the border engraving, which was just some zigzaging border work, was different on each gun - where the engraving was done by hand (i'd visited the factory), on one the zigzaging border started out at the back end of the receiver one size, and by the time it'd gotten to the front end of the receiver it had grown in size maybe 25%. That was when i realized shotguns engraved on Mondays and Fridays were sloppier than the ones made mid-week

[alwayshere]

My opinions - we really need Linesider here to confirm.

1) bezel insert 100% aftermarket. Both artificially faded and look at the pip - metal surrounds too.
2) agree on the case reference / timing. 7016 wasn't that early
3) dial isn't clear enough to make a call

[larryccf]

Heuermonaco - up above you indicated " it seems the '7016' reference was first produced 1969 onwards"

One of my reference sources indicates "1960s/1970s" for the 7016



https://www.watchspot.net/tudormodelno.html

and mine is showing a production date of "1.68" with a S/N that indicates early 1968

it may be that serial number is correct - it's a shame Tudor model history is so confused, to say the least

hell, that link i just posted even mentions the "7528" with the only info being 1960s/1970s

[harry in montreal]

The inner caseback should have a date stamp, but the outer engraving is nice and deep. The rotor does have some odd shape to it.

What did OP pay for this watch ? The mid case is good, hands. Newer triplock. Dunno, I still like it.

[heuermonaco]

Close up

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

The inner caseback should have a date stamp,...... The rotor does have some odd shape to it.

.......

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

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by AJMarcus

This is hard to follow without pics.

Impenetrable post without pictures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Impenetrable post without pictures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry now see the pix. Dummy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk