1680 Red Submariner

[Rameez-Q]

Originally Posted by Brisman

Thank you for the feedback guys, much appreciated, apologies if I came over aggressive as somebody mentioned.
Thanks again for the info.

If you want a better opinion, get clearer pictures.

Everyone is providing a vague opinion as we have vague pictures.

Accept advice, if you do not want advice and are going to respond to harshly simply do not ask.

For $25k you could buy two of these or one amazing full set one.

[springer]

I would exercise some caution with this Submariner. I'm seeing subtle discrepancies in this dial when compared to a genuine red Sub Mark II dial which reminds me of another aftermarket red dial that had some attributes from a couple of genuine red Sub dials not unlike this dial being questioned here.

Below is a magnified photo of the OP's 1680 Submariner and a couple of photos fromdrsd.com that depict a Submariner Mark II red dial.

I've noticed three areas that could use some scrutiny. On the OP's watch, the M (meters abbreviation) is too far to the left and does not align properly underneath the M in SUBMAIRNER as found on the photos of the genuine Mark II dial. Next, the "F" in feet does not align the same with the "R" in Submariner when compared to the genuine dial and additionally, the top horizontal bar in the "F" appears too short. The last area you may look at is the "A" in PERPETUAL directly below the "E" in ROLEX appears to be too far too the left when compared to the genuine dial. There are more, but these three examples are fairly clear to see.

Better photos would make for a better argument, but I'm not seeing anything convincing in the OP's dial photo especially when compared to a genuine Mark II dial.

[Michael M.]

Regarding my comment concerning the dial, the dial fonts look quite suspicious, along with the 'tropical' brown dial color and the lume plot texture. Something about the dial screams 'Vietnam' to me. Springer (John) above has provided pictures of a genuine Mk1 1680 dial, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that based off of the picture of the watch provided, the dial fonts look quite suspicious indeed.

That being said, I would still like to see additional pictures of the watch in question.

[cajuntiger]

Originally Posted by Brisman

C'mon Guys, don't reply if you don't know what your talking about.

Really, this effort for a fake in Oz, don't think so, dial, bezel.

Look at the crystal, bezel, and the wear. Serial No. Looks good for this set up.

So, those that say a fake, you've got to say why?

seems like you really don't need advice and are already convinced all is good. If you want to hear our thoughts then lose the attitude.

[calj_whyte]

Denial is the first stage in the grieving process... Sure you haven't pulled the trigger and trying to convince yourself that all is okay?

[QueueCumber]

It looks like a Mk III to me if anything.





Rolex font looks squashed and that 0 in 660 is big and very close to the F in FT. I don't know if that crystal is making everything look more squashed together or if it is a bad dial, but the lume dots look huge and are circular while the fonts are all squashed horizontally. If it were being squashed together by the crystal, I would think it would be uniform radially and not just on the horizontal access.

[Brisman]

G'day guys, firstly apologies if I was over enthused about this, thought I found a winner. I really appreciate the feedback, sorry about the attitude.
So, the dial was a fake, apparently out of Vietnam or thereabouts. I didn't get particulars, but spotted by one of our Rolex guys in Oz that has seen it trying to be passed off before. Sorry, no specifics on this.