Pic doesn't belong to the actual 114270 Exp I watch...

[Orchi]

Err buddies...please take a closer look at this eBay listing of an Explorer I...
that is said to be Ref 114270...

It contains a picture that doesn't belong to the actual watch...n it doesn't match with the other pictures being posted in the listing by the eBay Seller - coeehenry ...of USA.

Please take note of the 1st picture in the following order...looks to be fresh out of the oven...so to speak.

Would the 1st picture be construed as...a case of misrepresentation...?
The rest of the pictures being posted...are showing the watch to be well
used...







Besides that discrepancy...can anyone see the Model Ref or Serial nos. printed on the Rolex Certificate of this watch correctly?



It would be interesting to tell from the Serial nos. whether the watch is
actually what it's claimed to be...a Ref "114270 Explorer I"...or Ref 14270 Explorer I...

That said...IF the 1st alphabet before the Serial Nos. is printed as "F"...it would then be produced in 2003/4 or so...
that would belong to the correct Ref 114270...with that type of Rolex paper certificate before Rolex introduced
the plastic warranty card...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rolex-Oyster-Per...QQcmdZViewItem

[tudorman8276]

...the first pic does NOT belong to the watch being sold.

...I would say that, all other considered, the watch being sold is however genuine. The seller has great FB etc.

...someone should contact the seller to ask about the FIRST picture in his listing, and ask them if they might consider removing it because of the inconsistency or ADDING any independent remark to the listing to address this infirmity/discrepancy.

Stan.

[TimeToGo]

I agree on the first photo also. I believe the small camera on the lower right corner of the picture denotes a "stock photo" available through sources.

Serial, starts with F.
Model also looks reads to start with 1142. Then my eyes fade...