Tiffany Dial 16013 Real or Fake?

[ionanator]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Aside from a forensic analysis with a ruler, I will say that the dial very much has a refinished look to me overall. Uneven spacing, uneven vertical placement, weird lume, etc. And the case and bracelet are very rough. Given the price, I think that the authenticators did you a favor, and you should just say thank you, and walk away.

No need even for a thread under the circumstances, but given that you started a thread, there's certainly no point in arguing with comments. If you solicit opinions, just read the responses. If you have your own opinion, that's fine, but just saying that you disagree because the photos are poor doesn't add any value. Your comments are classic responses for someone trying to justify their belief.

I do not have any strongly held belief regarding this watch’s authenticity. If I did, I would not have made this post. I have repeatedly stated I appreciate the feedback, which I do. I am merely relaying my findings and other feedback I have received from reputable dealers in other places to facilitate a more productive discussion. I did not know differences of opinion were not well tolerated by the more sanctimonious, holier than thou members of this forum. I understand the case is rough and grossly over-polished. That was reflected in the final sale price, which was 50% under market for what one of these should be if everything was right. Again, I appreciate the input and opinions of everyone here but the brow-beating is unnecessary.

[springer]

There are a lot of dealers that consider their expertise to be above par. If you are around vintage long enough, you will find this out on your own. From my many decades of experience, there are very, very few "dealers" that have the necessary background and skills to make proper judgements regarding the authenticity of a particular watch, or watch part. I will say that some of the best advice you'll receive regarding watch or watch part concerns will come from private collectors.

Regarding the watch photos that you posted here, you obviously weren't too thrilled with the other opinions you received elsewhere regarding its authenticity or you wouldn't have posted the watch here. Move on and find something else that won't be a "watch with a story."

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by ionanator

I do not have any strongly held belief regarding this watch’s authenticity. If I did, I would not have made this post. I have repeatedly stated I appreciate the feedback, which I do. I am merely relaying my findings and other feedback I have received from reputable dealers in other places to facilitate a more productive discussion. I did not know differences of opinion were not well tolerated by the more sanctimonious, holier than thou members of this forum. I understand the case is rough and grossly over-polished. That was reflected in the final sale price, which was 50% under market for what one of these should be if everything was right. Again, I appreciate the input and opinions of everyone here but the brow-beating is unnecessary.

Differences of opinion are not only tolerated, but welcomed, but they're only helpful when they are backed up by knowledge or facts. You are not giving any "findings", you're just saying you disagree with everyone else's opinion, which is not productive. I understand that you're not happy with the options you're receiving, but playing the victim and name-calling are just childish.

Your idea of value is wildly skewed.

[ionanator]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Differences of opinion are not only tolerated, but welcomed, but they're only helpful when they are backed up by knowledge or facts. You are not giving any "findings", you're just saying you disagree with everyone else's opinion, which is not productive. I understand that you're not happy with the options you're receiving, but playing the victim and name-calling are just childish.

Your idea of value is wildly skewed.

I provided pictures and references, as well as, other perspectives shared by relevant people in the industry on this subject. My apologizes if the knowledge, facts, or opinions presented did not pass your lofty standards. I was operating under the mistaken impression that "fact-checking" and thought-policing was something reserved for Meta platforms only. I am not looking to be happy with options, I am looking for the truth. It is not arguing, it is called a discussion. I took zero issue with any of the comments and found all of them to be quite helpful. That being said, I am not a fan of being talked down to, of demagoguery or of snobbery in a hobby that is supposed to be fun and enjoyable. What's childish is talking down to someone for asking questions or sharing a different perspective. You cannot learn anything new by shutting down discussion or being dismissive. I have been in the hobby for almost 15 years and still have a lot to learn.

[CTech]

Originally Posted by ionanator

I ..... have a lot to learn.

Correct.

[ionanator]

Originally Posted by CTech

Correct.

Indeed, not one to pretend to know it all. Thank you all for your insights.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by ionanator

I provided pictures and references, as well as, other perspectives shared by relevant people in the industry on this subject. My apologizes if the knowledge, facts, or opinions presented did not pass your lofty standards. I was operating under the mistaken impression that "fact-checking" and thought-policing was something reserved for Meta platforms only. I am not looking to be happy with options, I am looking for the truth. It is not arguing, it is called a discussion. I took zero issue with any of the comments and found all of them to be quite helpful. That being said, I am not a fan of being talked down to, of demagoguery or of snobbery in a hobby that is supposed to be fun and enjoyable. What's childish is talking down to someone for asking questions or sharing a different perspective. You cannot learn anything new by shutting down discussion or being dismissive. I have been in the hobby for almost 15 years and still have a lot to learn.

You should re-read people's responses again. I didn't get any sense that people were being "snobbish" or "talking down to you", the fact that you bring that up is more a reflection of your personality and your inability to be told something different than your thoughts -- ironic given thats what you are trying to preach yourself.

As others have said, we welcome differing views but it needs to be backed with substance not merely "I don't think so F you" attitude. Some of us are more blunt than others but its time and effort that we contribute to this forum and we don't make a dime from sharing insights.

Going back on topic, I agree with others that you should return this watch unless you have found solid confidence that the T&Co markings are authentic and the dial itself is not a redial.

[ionanator]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

You should re-read people's responses again. I didn't get any sense that people were being "snobbish" or "talking down to you", the fact that you bring that up is more a reflection of your personality and your inability to be told something different than your thoughts -- ironic given thats what you are trying to preach yourself.

As others have said, we welcome differing views but it needs to be backed with substance not merely "I don't think so F you" attitude. Some of us are more blunt than others but its time and effort that we contribute to this forum and we don't make a dime from sharing insights.

Going back on topic, I agree with others that you should return this watch unless you have found solid confidence that the T&Co markings are authentic and the dial itself is not a redial.

I appreciate the free psychoanalysis. You should re-read my comments, there is no f-you attitude. I have expressed gratitude throughout this thread. It seems like a few of you have an issue with being challenged or reconciling opposing viewpoints. Like most, I do not have time to write a full treatise in every response with citations and cross-references. I do not see you doing that either. Also like most, I am merely drawing from my own experience, sharing what I found from researching online or what was shared by others. As stated in the original post and throughout, I see problems with the watch. That being said, I was hoping for something more constructive than the watch looks wrong or it cannot be verified without papers. Many contributors did in fact provide insightful information, pictures and links, which were helpful. What is not helpful is saying things like a thread should have never been created or getting ruffled over anything that may probe the prevailing narrative of the thread.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by ionanator

I appreciate the free psychoanalysis. You should re-read my comments, there is no f-you attitude. I have expressed gratitude throughout this thread. It seems like a few of you have an issue with being challenged or reconciling opposing viewpoints. Like most, I do not have time to write a full treatise in every response with citations and cross-references. I do not see you doing that either. Also like most, I am merely drawing from my own experience, sharing what I found from researching online or what was shared by others. As stated in the original post and throughout, I see problems with the watch. That being said, I was hoping for something more constructive than the watch looks wrong or it cannot be verified without papers. Many contributors did in fact provide insightful information, pictures and links, which were helpful. What is not helpful is saying things like a thread should have never been created or getting ruffled over anything that may probe the prevailing narrative of the thread.

I dont think anyone has been "ruffled" other than you though? lol

You don't have to specifically say "F you" but your responses are particularly sarcastic in tone, effecting the same connotation. Anyway, lets not debate it but rather lets discuss your watch in question.

You accuse me of not providing references so how about I provide the below. I simply googled Rolex 1978 16013 and picked out the ones from dealer's websites. All of these 4 dials have the same consistent dial print and layout. It looks nothing like yours.

Oddly enough, when I looked up a 1985/1986 version, your dial has closer resemblance but still no good.

- S in superlative is equal curved top and bottom, yours is small top bigger bottom
- C and C alignment is different
- L and R alignment is different

Its closer but still no cigar.



Maybe now you can actually draw on your 15 years in this hobby - i'm quoting you btw - and show us why you think your dial is original. I think we are all happy to be wrong.

Alternative, why dont you post the same on The Vintage Rolex Forum - Xeramic will be able to provide his 2c on this matter.

[ionanator]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

I dont think anyone has been "ruffled" other than you though? lol

You don't have to specifically say "F you" but your responses are particularly sarcastic in tone, effecting the same connotation. Anyway, lets not debate it but rather lets discuss your watch in question.

You accuse me of not providing references so how about I provide the below. I simply googled Rolex 1978 16013 and picked out the ones from dealer's websites. All of these 4 dials have the same consistent dial print and layout. It looks nothing like yours.

Oddly enough, when I looked up a 1985/1986 version, your dial has closer resemblance but still no good.

- S in superlative is equal curved top and bottom, yours is small top bigger bottom
- C and C alignment is different
- L and R alignment is different

Its closer but still no cigar.



Maybe now you can actually draw on your 15 years in this hobby - i'm quoting you btw - and show us why you think your dial is original. I think we are all happy to be wrong.

Alternative, why dont you post the same on The Vintage Rolex Forum - Xeramic will be able to provide his 2c on this matter.

Not ruffled at all. You made a great substantive post, thank you. 15 years in the hobby, a little under 8 years being into vintage Rolex. Again to reiterate, I am working from the supposition that the dial is repainted or not original. I am playing devil's advocate because I want to eliminate all possibility of the watch being authentic before making a decision to reject it. Your point is well taken and I agree these dials look nothing like the dial on the Tiffany watch just purchased. The script and alignment is much different.

As a counterpoint, here is a 1979 Tiffany dial 16013 that sold naked on Hodinkee for $11,500 plus tax which is nearly 4 times what I paid on mine.
Here is a link to the watch in case attached pictures come out unclear:

https://shop.hodinkee.com/products/2...39538264670283

To my eye the position of the "C"s is very similar. The "R" in Rolex is quite similar. The "R" in perpetual lines up with the "L" in Rolex. To me the part that looks off is the thickness of the text but that could be a picture quality issue. Overall the watches have very similar dials. I am curious to hear input from others.

By way of update and for further clarification purposes, after again verifying with eBay, eBay's authenticator is saying only the Tiffany & Co. stamp is "aftermarket/custom" and they do not believe the dial has been repainted or tampered with otherwise. Again I do not lend too much credence to this opinion due to the sheer volume of watches they must process quickly and since this is such a niche watch. The whole dial could very well be repainted. Adam Golden mentioned he had a similar experience with eBay on another Tiffany dial Rolex and he ended up taking delivery of it anyway.

It is well known that Tiffany signed/retailed Rolex were only produced and distributed in the US market and thus had other characteristics distinct to the US market like the bracelets. Were there any other known variations in the watches that are recognized in terms of the script on the dials? Is there a definitive guide to Datejust script and serifs? I recall seeing one some years ago, but can't find it. Are there known script variations between Datejust made for different markets in the same year? Are there script variations depending on the batch of watches produced in the same year? Have all these variations been accounted for and catalogued? I am genuinely curious. I have owned two 1601s and one 1603 all of which had slightly different variations in script thickness and positioning. None of those watches had repainted dials.

If a dial was repainted by hand there should be many tell-tale signs under magnification correct? The reason why I keep mentioning the picture quality is that repainted dials are usually pretty clear in person, particularly under magnification. I do know the Tiffany stamps were done mostly by hand if the information I have read on Bob's watches and elsewhere is correct.

[BigBlue1]

Fine…. I’ll say it. It’s a POS. It’s fake, refinished or whatever you want to call it. You came here for constructive criticism asking for help and totally received it by some very highly regarded knowledgeable Rolex enthusiasts. Some of whom are the best in the Feild. Yet you still keep in a roundabout way keep deviating from their expertise. Obviously your not going to get the answer you’re looking for here. I have in the past been in disbelief and disillusioned like you are now. Walk away. Why would you want to buy something that is frowned upon without documentation that can’t be authenticated? Doesn’t make sense. Just accept it.

[TuRo]

My advice (as per someone else) is to get a second opinion on VRF -Tapatalk if you've not already.

Takes 5 mins to join - it's very good for the 'inside baseball' stuff :-) Keep us posted. Best regards.

From memory there were 3 Tiffany experts there, though one sadly has passed a couple of years back:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...rf-t38129.html

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by ionanator

Not ruffled at all. You made a great substantive post, thank you. 15 years in the hobby, a little under 8 years being into vintage Rolex. Again to reiterate, I am working from the supposition that the dial is repainted or not original. I am playing devil's advocate because I want to eliminate all possibility of the watch being authentic before making a decision to reject it. Your point is well taken and I agree these dials look nothing like the dial on the Tiffany watch just purchased. The script and alignment is much different.

As a counterpoint, here is a 1979 Tiffany dial 16013 that sold naked on Hodinkee for $11,500 plus tax which is nearly 4 times what I paid on mine.
Here is a link to the watch in case attached pictures come out unclear:

https://shop.hodinkee.com/products/2...39538264670283

To my eye the position of the "C"s is very similar. The "R" in Rolex is quite similar. The "R" in perpetual lines up with the "L" in Rolex. To me the part that looks off is the thickness of the text but that could be a picture quality issue. Overall the watches have very similar dials. I am curious to hear input from others.

By way of update and for further clarification purposes, after again verifying with eBay, eBay's authenticator is saying only the Tiffany & Co. stamp is "aftermarket/custom" and they do not believe the dial has been repainted or tampered with otherwise. Again I do not lend too much credence to this opinion due to the sheer volume of watches they must process quickly and since this is such a niche watch. The whole dial could very well be repainted. Adam Golden mentioned he had a similar experience with eBay on another Tiffany dial Rolex and he ended up taking delivery of it anyway.

It is well known that Tiffany signed/retailed Rolex were only produced and distributed in the US market and thus had other characteristics distinct to the US market like the bracelets. Were there any other known variations in the watches that are recognized in terms of the script on the dials? Is there a definitive guide to Datejust script and serifs? I recall seeing one some years ago, but can't find it. Are there known script variations between Datejust made for different markets in the same year? Are there script variations depending on the batch of watches produced in the same year? Have all these variations been accounted for and catalogued? I am genuinely curious. I have owned two 1601s and one 1603 all of which had slightly different variations in script thickness and positioning. None of those watches had repainted dials.

If a dial was repainted by hand there should be many tell-tale signs under magnification correct? The reason why I keep mentioning the picture quality is that repainted dials are usually pretty clear in person, particularly under magnification. I do know the Tiffany stamps were done mostly by hand if the information I have read on Bob's watches and elsewhere is correct.

You should have led the post with this example for others to opine on. Why the coyness?

The hondikee example is exactly the same as yours - even the lume dots are identical. The only thing I could pick up is the position of the "dot" after Co which is slightly off but we know the T&Co printing can be inconsistent.

Its worth checking with Xeramic / Perzicope who would have the next level eye on this. I don't 100% trust dealers as they are sellers but this is starting to get more interesting - now i'm not 100% convinced this is a redial.

This is good as it may potentially raise a new variation of the 16013 dial - hopefully someone has catalogued a more thorough dial "mark" over time. I'm still skeptical but this adds some hope?

[CTech]

There's an expression well known in scientific, engineering and other technical industries:

"In God we trust, all others bring data."

This applies equally to Tiffany dialed Rolex watches, or indeed any of the exotic stone, lapis lazuli or wood dials. The required data in those cases would be some sort of verifiable evidence that the dial was genuine, for example an original sales receipt or a Rolex service document listing the type of dial.

Even those watches with such documents are not guaranteed to be genuine as there have been instances where a watch was serviced at an RSC with a genuine Rolex stone dial, the dial was replaced with a cheaper aftermarket stone dial, the watch with the fake dial was sold with the papers showing it had been serviced with a stone dial and then the genuine stone dial was put on another watch to be sent for service.

With respect to the OP's watch:

1. The Rolex script does not conform to any known, verifiable version of a 16013 Datejust dial.

2. The details of the Tiffany & Co. stamp are not consistent with known, verifiable Tiffany stamps.

3. There is no corroborating data to suggest either that the dial is genuine or is original to the watch.

With respect to the Hodinkee 16013 watch, my opinion is largely the same:

1. The Rolex script does not conform to any known, verifiable version of a 16013 Datejust dial.

2. The details of the Tiffany & Co. stamp are not consistent with known, verifiable Tiffany stamps.

3. There is no corroborating data to suggest either that the dial is genuine or is original to the watch.

The conclusion seems to be clear to me; both have aftermarket dials with fake Tiffany stamps and the fact that somebody was prepared to pay $11,500 for the Hodinkee example does not make it any more genuine.

If the OP only paid about 25% of that for his watch then it's not too bad financially as he could put a genuine dial on it relatively cheaply and have an average condition watch at about the market value.

[ionanator]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

You should have led the post with this example for others to opine on. Why the coyness?

The hondikee example is exactly the same as yours - even the lume dots are identical. The only thing I could pick up is the position of the "dot" after Co which is slightly off but we know the T&Co printing can be inconsistent.

Its worth checking with Xeramic / Perzicope who would have the next level eye on this. I don't 100% trust dealers as they are sellers but this is starting to get more interesting - now i'm not 100% convinced this is a redial.

This is good as it may raise a new variation of the 16013 dial - hopefully someone has catalogued a more thorough dial "mark" over time.

There was no coyness believe me. Between people calling it a clear fake (along with others bandwagoning this sentiment), implying that I am somehow delusional for questioning the basis of their conclusions, and others now calling the watch a POS, I incorrectly assumed the commentators/experts had at the very least Googled Rolex 16013 Tiffany. They would have seen the Hodinkee example at the top of the search. There are other Tiffany examples with similar dials that I have seen online, and some that are completely different. Although it was a late night impulse buy, I did a bit of due diligence prior to making the purchase. I was fairly confident until the authenticator flagged it.

I appreciate everyone, including you, that at least took the time to look into this instead of just falling back on the watch is wrong and our opinion is infallible, how dare you question it.

Thank you to you and Turo for suggesting the other forum. I was not aware of that site. I only consulted dealer friends and acquaintances on Instagram thus far, aside from this forum. I will ask for an opinion on that forum as well. Hopefully one of the Tiffany experts or collectors can respond and give their input. I will keep everyone updated.

In the interim, if anyone else notices something or has any input please feel free to chime in. If the watch is a fake, that’s fine but I’d like to get to the bottom of it. The dealers I consulted that said it looked good purchase these Tiffany watches relatively frequently. I respect the opinions of people on this forum as well, which is why I am trying to reconcile and make sense of these competing opinions.

[TuRo]

Blimey, interesting stuff.
You've got me stoked now C-Tech...if the hodinkee is the same fake dial that's quite a grim prospect for the poor buyer.
As I said before Tiffany not really my area, so no dog in the race, .. popcorn and slush puppy on order for this though :-)

[CTech]

Another interesting way to look at this would be to determine if there any Datejust dials that look exactly like the OP's and the Hodinkee watch but without the Tiffany stamp.

If not, does it seem likely that Rolex sent watches with these dials only to Tiffany, and every one of them received the Tiffany stamp?

Or, when Rolex did the Tiffany stamping in house, does it seem likely that they had a special and different dial purely for the Tiffany dials?

[TuRo]

Indeed sir. Only one I found similar, was the one I posted earlier in thread - #27 - not looked it over forensically though.
Rolex Datejust 36
£3,736
https://chrono24.app/rolex/rolex-dat...GB&SETCURR=GBP

[ionanator]

Originally Posted by CTech

There's an expression well known in scientific, engineering and other technical industries:

"In God we trust, all others bring data."

This applies equally to Tiffany dialed Rolex watches, or indeed any of the exotic stone, lapis lazuli or wood dials. The required data in those cases would be some sort of verifiable evidence that the dial was genuine, for example an original sales receipt or a Rolex service document listing the type of dial.

Even those watches with such documents are not guaranteed to be genuine as there have been instances where a watch was serviced at an RSC with a genuine Rolex stone dial, the dial was replaced with a cheaper aftermarket stone dial, the watch with the fake dial was sold with the papers showing it had been serviced with a stone dial and then the genuine stone dial was put on another watch to be sent for service.

With respect to the OP's watch:

1. The Rolex script does not conform to any known, verifiable version of a 16013 Datejust dial.

2. The details of the Tiffany & Co. stamp are not consistent with known, verifiable Tiffany stamps.

3. There is no corroborating data to suggest either that the dial is genuine or is original to the watch.

With respect to the Hodinkee 16013 watch, my opinion is largely the same:

1. The Rolex script does not conform to any known, verifiable version of a 16013 Datejust dial.

2. The details of the Tiffany & Co. stamp are not consistent with known, verifiable Tiffany stamps.

3. There is no corroborating data to suggest either that the dial is genuine or is original to the watch.

The conclusion seems to be clear to me; both have aftermarket dials with fake Tiffany stamps and the fact that somebody was prepared to pay $11,500 for the Hodinkee example does not make it any more genuine.

If the OP only paid about 25% of that for his watch then it's not too bad financially as he could put a genuine dial on it relatively cheaply and have an average condition watch at about the market value.

By that standard almost no vintage watch, even one with full box and papers could be definitively deemed all original, let alone any unusual, doubled signed watches or piece unique/unicorn watches. No watch could be authenticated in the absence of an official written statement from the brand, archival documents from the brand or a brand issued catalogue or advertisement containing a detailed depiction of the particular reference. No one would buy any watch off the beaten path and all of the big watch auction houses would be out of business. It’s a good thing the vast majority watch community does not operate under such impossible standards. What’s next? Will we require video evidence of a watch actually being purchased from an authorized source to verify authenticity? I’m all for being thorough but we’re bordering on the ridiculous. Absent unlimited amounts of money and time, there is only so much one can do to ensure originality.

[ionanator]

Originally Posted by CTech

Another interesting way to look at this would be to determine if there any Datejust dials that look exactly like the OP's and the Hodinkee watch but without the Tiffany stamp.

If not, does it seem likely that Rolex sent watches with these dials only to Tiffany, and every one of them received the Tiffany stamp?

Or, when Rolex did the Tiffany stamping in house, does it seem likely that they had a special and different dial purely for the Tiffany dials?

This is a much better question. As I mentioned in previous posts, I have seen Tiffany stamped DJs where the Tiffany & Co. stamp appears to be much more uniform with the rest of the script on the dial (one example of such a watch was sold by Theo & Harris). I suspect these were printed by Rolex directly on the dials. The rest, like the variation seen in the Hodinkee watch were done by Tiffany either at their flagship store in NYC or at regional stores. It is also possible that one variation is correct and the rest are aftermarket, however this seems to be contradicted by the information presented on Bob’s Watches and other blogs that talk about these watches.

Please note that I am not precluding the possibility that the Hodinkee watch is also a repainted dial or even that the dial on my watch was repainted in such a way as to mimic the Hodinkee watch. These Tiffany stamped DJs sell for a bit of a premium (of course anything on Hodinkee sells for a bit more) but it seems like a lot of effort to make a few thousand extra bucks. My two cents.

On a lighter note, has anyone ever seen a genuine doubles signed Abercrombie & Fitch Rolex? I’m not talking about the Abercrombie & Fitch signed Oyster produced by Rolex or the Rolex Commando retailed by Abercrombie & Fitch but a true doubled signed example in any reference. Hopefully that does not open a new can of worms. It may be worth making another thread about now that we are all friends :)

[CTech]

Originally Posted by ionanator

By that standard almost no vintage watch, even one with full box and papers could be definitively deemed all original,

That is correct and I believe that is why very few watches are now advertised as "all original". Look carefully at the wording and you'll see a number of rather vague descriptions, such as "all genuine Rolex", "period correct", etc., precisely because there are so many manufactured full sets and fake boxes, sales receipts, certificates, etc. in circulation and a large number of crooked vendors trying to cash in. The also large number of inexperienced but enthusiastic buyers means there is a ready market for such things and so the cycle continues indefinitely.

If you are buying a relatively ordinary watch because you like it and want to wear it, it is a matter of personal preference if it is acceptable to you if the dial has been changed at service or if it has newer hands, and maybe it doesn't matter to you at all whether you know this or not.

However, if you are being asked to pay a premium for a special feature, and especially if you are buying the watch with investment in mind, then it matters a lot, because you have to consider selling the watch sometime in the future and how the market, and hence your return on your investment, might determine its value if it is deemed to be full of fake or aftermarket parts, but those parts were thought to be genuine by you at the time of purchase.

Look at the Tiffany stamped Daytona that was sold at auction a while ago and you can see the value of provenance. This sold for a very high price because it had been authenticated by Tiffany through their archive process, so in this case the auction house could show provenance beyond reasonable doubt and the potential buyers were confident it was genuine and original.

That, I think, is a good example of how verification works in a good way for all, but if you want to see examples of the darker side of parts swapping and manipulation look no further than some of Perezcope's excellent articles about the scams and forgeries he has uncovered, including some at the most prestigious auction houses.

[77T]

Originally Posted by ionanator

I called Stoll & Co aka eBay’s authenticator and they confirmed that they believed the dial to be done by a third party other than Tiffany or Rolex.

I concur with Stoll & Co unequivocally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by 77T

I concur with Stoll & Co unequivocally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Someone at Stoll & Co probably read this thread

[77T]

OP actually got their opinion before starting the thread.

To me, it’s intuitively obvious to even the casual WIS observer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Indeed sir. Only one I found similar, was the one I posted earlier in thread - #27 - not looked it over forensically though.
Rolex Datejust 36
£3,736
https://chrono24.app/rolex/rolex-dat...GB&SETCURR=GBP

Sorry, I missed your earlier post Paul but its a good pick up. Whats odd is the year is also 1978 yet the majority of 1978 have been the fonts in my earlier post but it appears there are clearly a few of these other variation floating around.

OP, I think you should raise this on VRF for their opinion. Its worth getting to the bottom of. Its definitely become a more interesting thread -- hopefully some other experts can chime in and confirm.

[ionanator]

Originally Posted by CTech

That is correct and I believe that is why very few watches are now advertised as "all original". Look carefully at the wording and you'll see a number of rather vague descriptions, such as "all genuine Rolex", "period correct", etc., precisely because there are so many manufactured full sets and fake boxes, sales receipts, certificates, etc. in circulation and a large number of crooked vendors trying to cash in. The also large number of inexperienced but enthusiastic buyers means there is a ready market for such things and so the cycle continues indefinitely.

If you are buying a relatively ordinary watch because you like it and want to wear it, it is a matter of personal preference if it is acceptable to you if the dial has been changed at service or if it has newer hands, and maybe it doesn't matter to you at all whether you know this or not.

However, if you are being asked to pay a premium for a special feature, and especially if you are buying the watch with investment in mind, then it matters a lot, because you have to consider selling the watch sometime in the future and how the market, and hence your return on your investment, might determine its value if it is deemed to be full of fake or aftermarket parts, but those parts were thought to be genuine by you at the time of purchase.

Look at the Tiffany stamped Daytona that was sold at auction a while ago and you can see the value of provenance. This sold for a very high price because it had been authenticated by Tiffany through their archive process, so in this case the auction house could show provenance beyond reasonable doubt and the potential buyers were confident it was genuine and original.

That, I think, is a good example of how verification works in a good way for all, but if you want to see examples of the darker side of parts swapping and manipulation look no further than some of Perezcope's excellent articles about the scams and forgeries he has uncovered, including some at the most prestigious auction houses.

Agree with all of this. The Goldberger 6265 Daytona being an example of a not so original watch. No seller alone, in the absence of other evidence, can bring absolute legitimacy to a particular sale but a reputable one will bring some at least.

[ionanator]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Sorry, I missed your earlier post Paul but its a good pick up. Whats odd is the year is also 1978 yet the majority of 1978 have been the fonts in my earlier post but it appears there are clearly a few of these other variation floating around.

OP, I think you should raise this on VRF for their opinion. Its worth getting to the bottom of. Its definitely become a more interesting thread -- hopefully some other experts can chime in and confirm.

I will do just that. To me the script still looks a bit off, even if the positioning is similar to the Hodinkee example. I am no expert on these, and like CTECH said, it’s uncertain whether the Hodinkee example is a reliable point of reference. It could also be the case that someone repainted this watch to look like the Hodinkee one, knowing it would be the main point of reference. In any case, I will post on the other forum as well but at this point I am leaning heavily towards rejecting the watch. Thanks again everyone.

[Mark020]

Originally Posted by 1675-david

someone at stoll & co probably read this thread

+1

[ionanator]

By way of update, here was the response from Xeramic over on the Vintage Rolex Forum:

“Hi and welcome,

Don't mind, dial and Tiffany printing are fully authentic and correct for the year; you did well with the Hodinkee finding, it's a match; I do also not see any indication that the dots are relumed; only thing to mention is that the minute hand seems to lack the lume.

Best,
Xeramic”

Thank you to Alwayshere and Turo for the suggestion. I will keep everyone updated, on any new developments. Thank you to everyone that contributed and made this a lively discussion.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by ionanator

By way of update, here was the response from Xeramic over on the Vintage Rolex Forum:

“Hi and welcome,

Don't mind, dial and Tiffany printing are fully authentic and correct for the year; you did well with the Hodinkee finding, it's a match; I do also not see any indication that the dots are relumed; only thing to mention is that the minute hand seems to lack the lume.

Best,
Xeramic”

Thank you to Alwayshere and Turo for the suggestion. I will keep everyone updated, on any new developments. Thank you to everyone that contributed and made this a lively discussion.

This is promising as X has seen much more Rolexes than all of us combined. It looks like this font / printing needs to be added to our proverbial records. As I said earlier, I’m always happy to be wrong!

Congrats on a solid buy.