Is this Submariner correct?

[nnigel46]

Super fake

[Seibei]

If not sure, don't buy.

Regarding the hand/dial lume mismatch, that is common and due to service hands having been installed while keeping the dial original. As far as I can tell service hands are the least of this watch's problems. Looks like some polishing "professional" really went to town on the crown guards.

[arcadelt]

Originally Posted by djyolky

It's a wind up fellas. But keep on keepin on.

[arcadelt]

Originally Posted by Seibei

If not sure, don't buy.

I'm not buying it, and it’s not for sale anyway as far as I know. I'm simply just interested. Thanks.

[R G]

It's alive!!!!!!!!!!

[Swearengen]

How is this a 5512 dial? It has a date window and 1000ft/300m.

Looks like a 16800 to me with perhaps a well polished case or photo from poor angel.

Originally Posted by inadeje

Its a hybrid. 16610 bezel, 5513 case with ground crown guards, submarine window date magnifier, 5512 dial, need I go on?

[thesharkfactor]

I think it's a frankenwatch using a fake case and a hash-bash of some genuine parts from a few era's.. I could be wrong though.

[cpl]

So where are the real experts in this forum?

[1675-David]

gotta be a matt dial 16800!!, CG look polished, a couple of small chips around the cyclops but don't see anything wrong here, nice dial, nice insert. There is no way (except with x-ray vision that works through a computer screen) to call out that case as either fake or "5513 case with ground crown guards"

[Toronto Soup King]

Ever since I read that monster WUS thread about Gineault and TC Subs, I've been wary of five-digit date models. Dunno about THIS one though, I only know the models I wear...which are all four-digit refs

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by inadeje

Its a hybrid. 16610 bezel, 5513 case with ground crown guards, submarine window date magnifier, 5512 dial, need I go on?

How is this, in any way, a 5512 dial? And how can you tell it's a 5513 case from that one photo?

Originally Posted by opaline460

Fake

What's fake? The whole thing? The dial appears to be an early 80s 16800 matte dial, and the case looks heavily polished. Hands aren't original, nor, likely, the crystal.

Originally Posted by nnigel46

Super fake

Why?

Originally Posted by 1675-David

gotta be a matt dial 16800!!, CG look polished, a couple of small chips around the cyclops but don't see anything wrong here, nice dial, nice insert. There is no way (except with x-ray vision that works through a computer screen) to call out that case as either fake or "5513 case with ground crown guards"

Agree, David.

[nnigel46]

I’m sorry for calling it a fake it’s definitely a Frankenstein/ put together watch �� percent

[nnigel46]

Come to think of it it’s just a nyc 47th streeet diamond district special ���������� lol

[swish77]

That's a matte dial 16800 from the early '80s, and it doesn't appear fake, although we'd need more photos and a look at the movement to confirm. Insert is correct, and has the tell-tale pumpkin patina on the pearl, which is common on this reference.

Crown guards have been over-polished, but otherwise I think it looks pretty good.

I don't understand the OP's question, though .... Just looks like a little dirt around the cyclops.

Not saying that it's an amazing example of a 16800, but we should be careful labeling watches as "fake" if you're not sure. This stuff stays online and can confuse guys who are researching this model later on.

Here's another legit example of a 16800 with matte dial.

[The_Walrus]

Originally Posted by inadeje

Its a hybrid. 16610 bezel, 5513 case with ground crown guards, submarine window date magnifier, 5512 dial, need I go on?

Are you sure?

[STEELINOX]

Well, it looks weird anyways ~ !

[OTE200]

Looks like a 16800 to me.

Nothing wrong with the crown guards in my opinion. I think the lighting is playing tricks on us a little bit. They're polished but not unusually short.

[jackruff]

Maybe if you want an expert opinion you should ask an expert and not post here... or not...

[XavierM]

Originally Posted by swish77

That's a matte dial 16800 from the early '80s, and it doesn't appear fake, although we'd need more photos and a look at the movement to confirm. Insert is correct, and has the tell-tale pumpkin patina on the pearl, which is common on this reference.

Crown guards have been over-polished, but otherwise I think it looks pretty good.

I don't understand the OP's question, though .... Just looks like a little dirt around the cyclops.

Not saying that it's an amazing example of a 16800, but we should be careful labeling watches as "fake" if you're not sure. This stuff stays online and can confuse guys who are researching this model later on.

Here's another legit example of a 16800 with matte dial.

Thanks for elevating the debate here, looks like a lot of bullshit has been said above...
I personally admit being confused by the cyclop magnification/size but that’s it.
Of course crown guards are dead but that’s probably not what the OP was concerned about.