The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum > Classifieds > WatchOut!!!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 30 July 2016, 12:54 AM   #1
marcusjcw21
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Real Name: Marcus
Location: Buffalo, NY
Watch: Rolex 2 tone 1005
Posts: 351
Rolex Rolex 6536 with strange statement in description...

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53...mtid=824&kw=lg

This Rolex 6536 doesn't have the correct dial at all. It is more consistent with a 6204, but is printed, and the word "Submariner" is very large. The description also starts with an odd statement, and is riddled with statements that seem odd, but seem to be an attempt to disclose that the watch is not a correct 6536/1.

In my opinion, it could have been a refinished dial many years ago by a legitimate dial refinisher who took a short cut because his cliche making skills couldn't handle the smaller text. Trust me... when making a cliche, it is easy to fail especially on smaller text when using the uv method to burn the image onto polymer covered steel cliche plates.

This could be an interesting watch. He said it is priced pretty low.
marcusjcw21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 12:57 AM   #2
marcusjcw21
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Real Name: Marcus
Location: Buffalo, NY
Watch: Rolex 2 tone 1005
Posts: 351
He is also selling a couple other interesting looking watches.
marcusjcw21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 01:15 AM   #3
GLADIATOR
"TRF" Member
 
GLADIATOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Real Name: Adam
Location: Costa Blanca,
Watch: YMII,GMTII,DAYTONA
Posts: 5,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusjcw21 View Post
He is also selling a couple other interesting looking watches.
What exactly should we be reporting?
__________________
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. Winston Churchill
"We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done."
GLADIATOR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 01:27 AM   #4
marcusjcw21
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Real Name: Marcus
Location: Buffalo, NY
Watch: Rolex 2 tone 1005
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLADIATOR View Post
What exactly should we be reporting?
I'm not saying it should be reported.
marcusjcw21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 01:31 AM   #5
Knappo 1307
2024 Pledge Member
 
Knappo 1307's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Sea Dweller
Posts: 8,556
Marcus, you may need to re-read the Watchout section rules. You've been posting things, that aren't supposed to be in here. Posting things from established sellers, without really much merit. I believe you were asked nicely to tone it down a bit, next time it may not be as nice. Just my humble opinion..
Knappo 1307 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 01:38 AM   #6
MonBK
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kingstown
Posts: 58,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusjcw21 View Post
I'm not saying it should be reported.
Then why are you posting it here?
MonBK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 01:42 AM   #7
marcusjcw21
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Real Name: Marcus
Location: Buffalo, NY
Watch: Rolex 2 tone 1005
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knappo 1307 View Post
Marcus, you may need to re-read the Watchout section rules. You've been posting things, that aren't supposed to be in here. Posting things from established sellers, without really much merit. I believe you were asked nicely to tone it down a bit, next time it may not be as nice. Just my humble opinion..
The two 6536 watches I posted today are just waiting for a tonnywatches /dung_chrono Vietnam special dial with matching hands. I thought it might be wise to be aware that these items are out there.
marcusjcw21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 01:47 AM   #8
marcusjcw21
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Real Name: Marcus
Location: Buffalo, NY
Watch: Rolex 2 tone 1005
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonBK View Post
Then why are you posting it here?
This watch has a dial that has printing on it that is not consistent with anything that Rolex ever produced. It is similar to a dial that belongs on a watch with an A296 movement, but it is not even very close to that dial on the 6204.
marcusjcw21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 01:53 AM   #9
MonBK
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kingstown
Posts: 58,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusjcw21 View Post
This watch has a dial that has printing on it that is not consistent with anything that Rolex ever produced. It is similar to a dial that belongs on a watch with an A296 movement, but it is not even very close to that dial on the 6204.
Geez, I think you'd have to look long and hard to find a more honest and upfront description of a watch.
MonBK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 01:59 AM   #10
marcusjcw21
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Real Name: Marcus
Location: Buffalo, NY
Watch: Rolex 2 tone 1005
Posts: 351
Okay... I will just say it... Printing "Rolex" and their coronet on the dial constitutes a criminal violation of Title 15 USC "Lanham Act" and trademark infringement. It is a crime to traffic in items bearing counterfeit trademarks. This watch bears at least 2 counterfeit trademarks. Here is the Law regarding trafficking in items bearing countereit trademarks for you to educate yourself: (check out the stiff penalties)

18 U.S. Code § 2320 - Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services

(a)Offenses.—Whoever intentionally—
(1) traffics in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services,
(2) traffics in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive,
(3) traffics in goods or services knowing that such good or service is a counterfeit military good or service the use, malfunction, or failure of which is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, the disclosure of classified information, impairment of combat operations, or other significant harm to a combat operation, a member of the Armed Forces, or to national security, or
(4) traffics in a drug and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such drug,
or attempts or conspires to violate any of paragraphs (1) through (4) shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Penalties.—
(1)In general.—Whoever commits an offense under subsection (a)—
(A) if an individual, shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000; and
(B) for a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a), if an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.
(2) Serious bodily injury or death.—
(A)Serious bodily injury.—
Whoever knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a), if an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.
(B)Death.—
Whoever knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a), if an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.
(3)Counterfeit military goods or services and counterfeit drugs.—Whoever commits an offense under subsection (a) involving a counterfeit military good or service or drug that uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with the drug—
(A) if an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if other than an individual, be fined not more than $15,000,000; and
(B) for a second or subsequent offense, if an individual, shall be fined not more than $15,000,000, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $30,000,000.
(c)Forfeiture and Destruction of Property; Restitution.—
Forfeiture, destruction, and restitution relating to this section shall be subject to section 2323, to the extent provided in that section, in addition to any other similar remedies provided by law.
(d)Defenses.—
All defenses, affirmative defenses, and limitations on remedies that would be applicable in an action under the Lanham Act shall be applicable in a prosecution under this section. In a prosecution under this section, the defendant shall have the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of any such affirmative defense.
(e)Presentence Report.—
(1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.
(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include—
(A) producers and sellers of legitimate goods or services affected by conduct involved in the offense;
(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such goods or services; and
(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.
(f)Definitions.—For the purposes of this section—
(1) the term “counterfeit mark” means—
(A) a spurious mark—
(i) that is used in connection with trafficking in any goods, services, labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature;
(ii) that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a mark registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and in use, whether or not the defendant knew such mark was so registered;
(iii) that is applied to or used in connection with the goods or services for which the mark is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or is applied to or consists of a label, patch, sticker, wrapper, badge, emblem, medallion, charm, box, container, can, case, hangtag, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature that is designed, marketed, or otherwise intended to be used on or in connection with the goods or services for which the mark is registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and
(iv) the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(B) a spurious designation that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a designation as to which the remedies of the Lanham Act are made available by reason of section 220506 of title 36;
but such term does not include any mark or designation used in connection with goods or services, or a mark or designation applied to labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature used in connection with such goods or services, of which the manufacturer or producer was, at the time of the manufacture or production in question, authorized to use the mark or designation for the type of goods or services so manufactured or produced, by the holder of the right to use such mark or designation;
(2) the term “financial gain” includes the receipt, or expected receipt, of anything of value;
(3) the term “Lanham Act” means the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes”, approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.);
(4) the term “counterfeit military good or service” means a good or service that uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such good or service and that—
(A) is falsely identified or labeled as meeting military specifications, or
(B) is intended for use in a military or national security application;
(5) the term “traffic” means to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or to make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess, with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of; and
(6) the term “drug” means a drug, as defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
(g)Limitation on Cause of Action.—
Nothing in this section shall entitle the United States to bring a criminal cause of action under this section for the repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended to deceive or confuse.
(h)Report to Congress.—
(1) Beginning with the first year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall include in the report of the Attorney General to Congress on the business of the Department of Justice prepared pursuant to section 522 of title 28, an accounting, on a district by district basis, of the following with respect to all actions taken by the Department of Justice that involve trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging, copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works (as defined in section 2318 of this title), criminal infringement of copyrights (as defined in section 2319 of this title), unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances (as defined in section 2319A of this title), or trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks (as defined in section 2320 of this title):
(A) The number of open investigations.
(B) The number of cases referred by the United States Customs Service.
(C) The number of cases referred by other agencies or sources.
(D) The number and outcome, including settlements, sentences, recoveries, and penalties, of all prosecutions brought under sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, and 2320 of title 18.
(2)
(A) The report under paragraph (1), with respect to criminal infringement of copyright, shall include the following:
(i) The number of infringement cases in these categories: audiovisual (videos and films); audio (sound recordings); literary works (books and musical compositions); computer programs; video games; and, others.
(ii) The number of online infringement cases.
(iii) The number and dollar amounts of fines assessed in specific categories of dollar amounts. These categories shall be: no fines ordered; fines under $500; fines from $500 to $1,000; fines from $1,000 to $5,000; fines from $5,000 to $10,000; and fines over $10,000.
(iv) The total amount of restitution ordered in all copyright infringement cases.
(B) In this paragraph, the term “online infringement cases” as used in paragraph (2) means those cases where the infringer—
(i) advertised or publicized the infringing work on the Internet; or
(ii) made the infringing work available on the Internet for download, reproduction, performance, or distribution by other persons.
(C) The information required under subparagraph (A) shall be submitted in the report required in fiscal year 2005 and thereafter.
(i)Transshipment and Exportation.—
No goods or services, the trafficking in of which is prohibited by this section, shall be transshipped through or exported from the United States. Any such transshipment or exportation shall be deemed a violation of section 42 of an Act to provide for the registration of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the “Trademark Act of 1946” or the “Lanham Act”).
marcusjcw21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 02:28 AM   #11
offrdmania
2024 Pledge Member
 
offrdmania's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Real Name: Matt
Location: Wine Country, Ca
Posts: 5,810
__________________
TRF Member 11738
offrdmania is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 02:33 AM   #12
marcusjcw21
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Real Name: Marcus
Location: Buffalo, NY
Watch: Rolex 2 tone 1005
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knappo 1307 View Post
Posting things from established sellers, without really much merit.
I am an independent third party. I am getting the impression that people are kind of picking and choosing who to report based on whether or not the person is a buddy or trusted seller or established seller. I don't know one of these guys from the next. I feel like I've been attacked for pointing out legitimate issues with items regardless of who the seller is.

I feel like some people may let some things slide if they know the seller or have done business with the seller. I disagree with letting things slide based on a previous established relationship. If you let it slide, then someone else is getting burned.

You specifically stated that I was posting some things from established sellers "without really much merit." That means that you believe there is at least SOME merit to my comments regarding those established sellers, but you think those concerns should be set aside because the seller's reputation is at stake. If the seller is selling questionable items, I'm not the one damaging the seller's reputation, the seller is the one damaging the seller's reputation. I'm just pointing out the concerns so people can be aware of the issue or potential issue.

You guys are picking and choosing to go after certain sellers, but not others. By letting an established seller get away with some of these issues, you are condoning unlawful behavior, fraud, and deceit. This will ultimately cause serious damage to the value of vintage Rolex watches if this practice isn't stopped. The law applies to everyone. So too, the policy regarding discussing or pointing out potential trademark infringement (on the forums) should also apply to everyone.

Peace.
marcusjcw21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 03:05 AM   #13
Knappo 1307
2024 Pledge Member
 
Knappo 1307's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Sea Dweller
Posts: 8,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusjcw21 View Post
I am an independent third party. I am getting the impression that people are kind of picking and choosing who to report based on whether or not the person is a buddy or trusted seller or established seller. I don't know one of these guys from the next. I feel like I've been attacked for pointing out legitimate issues with items regardless of who the seller is.

I feel like some people may let some things slide if they know the seller or have done business with the seller. I disagree with letting things slide based on a previous established relationship. If you let it slide, then someone else is getting burned.

You specifically stated that I was posting some things from established sellers "without really much merit." That means that you believe there is at least SOME merit to my comments regarding those established sellers, but you think those concerns should be set aside because the seller's reputation is at stake. If the seller is selling questionable items, I'm not the one damaging the seller's reputation, the seller is the one damaging the seller's reputation. I'm just pointing out the concerns so people can be aware of the issue or potential issue.

You guys are picking and choosing to go after certain sellers, but not others. By letting an established seller get away with some of these issues, you are condoning unlawful behavior, fraud, and deceit. This will ultimately cause serious damage to the value of vintage Rolex watches if this practice isn't stopped. The law applies to everyone. So too, the policy regarding discussing or pointing out potential trademark infringement (on the forums) should also apply to everyone.

Peace.

You've been warned. Good luck...
Knappo 1307 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 03:10 AM   #14
Knappo 1307
2024 Pledge Member
 
Knappo 1307's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Sea Dweller
Posts: 8,556
Actually, I should pull my current listing off eBay. I'm sure that lint on the crystal was not Rolex issued....
Knappo 1307 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 03:29 AM   #15
Kellokonttori
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 328
I have to say that I do get the OP's point. I see quite a few watches posted here and quite often people with little or no knowledge are calling them out as fakes and also damaging the sellers rep and hurting their possilities of selling the watch.

This watch clearly has issues, no question about it
Kellokonttori is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 07:19 AM   #16
crowncollection
"TRF" Member
 
crowncollection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: David
Location: australia
Posts: 20,152
This one has been re engraved ( the case) but at least it is real. A replaced bezel ( not marked so ok ) but should be disclosed. Dial is a bad resprayed IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
watches many
crowncollection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 07:34 AM   #17
dysondiver
"TRF" Member
 
dysondiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: tom
Location: northern ireland
Watch: my fins
Posts: 10,063
its a shame that more folk dont know how big the mine field is ,,,, vintage needs experts , the trouble is that its seldom the people who shoul , or could do with reading these posts that get to.

i could have made that sub dial with letraset ,,,
dysondiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 11:24 AM   #18
GLADIATOR
"TRF" Member
 
GLADIATOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Real Name: Adam
Location: Costa Blanca,
Watch: YMII,GMTII,DAYTONA
Posts: 5,288
In my opinion, this watch would not be breaching eBay rules (nor mine if they existed)
Seller has made it quite clear that the watch is restored, he makes it clear the dial has been redone, and admits he has no clue about the bezel

Additionally, and maybe more importantly he clearly states that he "gives the buyer 3 days to have the watch checked out" and if you do not like it, just ship it back.

That to me is very fair.

Counterfeit and fakes are "out to deceive others" in my opinion, this seller/watch is NOT trying to deceive - indeed he is pointing any buyer to the issues.

Because of that, I doubt it violates eBay rules

Regards
__________________
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. Winston Churchill
"We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done."
GLADIATOR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 02:18 PM   #19
marcusjcw21
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Real Name: Marcus
Location: Buffalo, NY
Watch: Rolex 2 tone 1005
Posts: 351
It still constitutes trademark infringement - which is a violation of both law and ebay policy. A refinished dial that is exactly the same as the original is one thing, but when that dial has been modified so much, it qualifies as trademark counterfeiting. I'm sure it's not an item that ebay would cancel though.
marcusjcw21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 06:26 PM   #20
freefly
"TRF" Member
 
freefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Eric
Location: AZ
Watch: 4&5-digit Sub/GMTs
Posts: 1,974
Yep, this one should go on the dial alone, IMO. Not to mention, this guy has a history of selling fake-dialed frankens.

Here's one of the more recent:

Seller: collectorvintagewatches
http://www.ebay.com/itm/291819748422

Also, the common red flag in all of his listings is the disclaimer: "I'm not an expert" which he mentions several times.
If he's not an "expert" and doesn't know what he's selling, then why does he primarly list vintage watches, and have the user name of "collectorvintagewatches" lol...
freefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 July 2016, 11:45 PM   #21
marcusjcw21
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Real Name: Marcus
Location: Buffalo, NY
Watch: Rolex 2 tone 1005
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by freefly View Post
Yep, this one should go on the dial alone, IMO. Not to mention, this guy has a history of selling fake-dialed frankens.

Here's one of the more recent:

Seller: collectorvintagewatches
http://www.ebay.com/itm/291819748422

Also, the common red flag in all of his listings is the disclaimer: "I'm not an expert" which he mentions several times.
If he's not an "expert" and doesn't know what he's selling, then why does he primarly list vintage watches, and have the user name of "collectorvintagewatches" lol...
I hadn't seen that one. Good find.
marcusjcw21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

Asset Appeal

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.