Do you bother reporting listings like this?

[Dan S]

And if so, what category do you use to make the report?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/ROLEX-subma...IAAOSwbCJfMGM3

"Here is a 1981 Rolex submariner, model 5513....serial # 7316757...NO DATE.....original 13 lug band stamped 93150....watch face, bezel, hands, case and band are in excellent condition with some tiny scratches on the case sides.....case or crystal has NOT been polished....keeps good time ...only main imperfections are some scratches and dents on the back cover......Overall, a beautiful 39 year old watch! I had trouble photographing it with the flash, so I took as many shots as I could..... Thanks for looking!
On Aug-10-20 at 09:14:45 PDT, seller added the following information:
This is a 100% authentic Rolex submariner with the original band."

[kwcsports]

That watch looks horrible. I don't know about reporting it, sorry.

[Dan S]

Usually I don't even look twice, but when I saw that the seller had doubled down on the authenticity with that added comment in the listing (presumably after receiving messages from other eBay members), it just bothered me. People are bidding BTW, but hopefully most of them understand the issues and still find value in other parts of the watch. Although the top bidder currently only has a feedback score of 2, so could be naive, or a shill.

[kwcsports]

A fool and his money soon part. I wouldn't touch that one.

[offrdmania]

Dan, are you saying you think the whole watch is fake?

eBay can care less about shill bidding and you having a hunch about it wont make them do anything unless it is obvious. They only pull watches down if its a flat out fake.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by offrdmania

Dan, are you saying you think the whole watch is fake?

eBay can care less about shill bidding and you having a hunch about it wont make them do anything. They only pull watches down if its a flat out obvious fake.

No, I have no reason to think it's entirely fake, and some parts certainly appear legit, but the description is obviously deceptive and could be the basis of a return.

I believe what you say about their policies and that they don't care about my opinion, which is probably for the best. Perhaps that is why they are moving to their new policy of sending all sold watches for expert authentication prior to delivery to the buyer.

[kwcsports]

That dial looks weird.

[Tom1675]

Originally Posted by kwcsports

That dial looks weird.

ya think!


Aside from the (refinished) dial there are original parts here. That said, i think we all know this is headed to 5 digits $ and that's too bad.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Dan S

No, I have no reason to think it's entirely fake, and some parts certainly appear legit, but the description is obviously deceptive and could be the basis of a return.



I believe what you say about their policies and that they don't care about my opinion, which is probably for the best. Perhaps that is why they are moving to their new policy of sending all sold watches for expert authentication prior to delivery to the buyer.

That watch will likely pass any eBay authentication. The undisclosed issues won’t disqualify the watch as a Rolex Submariner.

The seller’s other items appear to be from a pawn shop or a swap meet type bazaar. That reason should forewarn bidders.

You’re right to be concerned. But it likely slides under the radar at eBay.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[arcadelt]

Originally Posted by Dan S

And if so, what category do you use to make the report?

This is the category and reasons to report use for any fake watch on eBay. You will also have to provide a short explanation, which only has enough word count to say something like "This watch is fake. Rolex did not make this" or similar.

[Dan S]

Thanks @arcadelt, that's actually the exact category that I thought made the most sense, although it's not really fake. I was hoping to find a category indicating that the description was inaccurate, but I guess that's something one could clarify in the comments.

[arcadelt]

Originally Posted by Dan S

...although it's not really fake.

Well, you didn’t say that and I have no clue. In that case, there is nothing to report - it is a case of caveat emptor.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Thanks @arcadelt, that's actually the exact category that I thought made the most sense, although it's not really fake. I was hoping to find a category indicating that the description was inaccurate, but I guess that's something one could clarify in the comments.

One way to handle this (if you wish to spend the time) is to paint the seller into a corner.

First, by asking the questions others have pointed out here. Then if you get lies in the reply, respond with your intention to report the item for failure to disclose material defects in the description.

If you don’t have an eBay ID, just get one for the purpose of reporting items


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dan S]

Yes, I did send a message to the seller, which is something I do occasionally, because it's courteous to give the seller the benefit of the doubt. I don't do it very often, because usually the seller just gets very adversarial and I don't enjoy it. But now and then a seller is actually grateful to have an error pointed out to them and they remove or revise the listing. I haven't received a response in this case, but I don't expect it will be very favorable.

[1watch]

Well, we at least know the dial is not correct for a 1981 5513....whether it's a real closed chapter ring or not would require more and better pics. From the pic, the print looks white and not gilt or recessed, so I'm guessing it's a fake dial.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by 1watch

Well, we at least know the dial is not correct for a 1981 5513....whether it's a real closed chapter ring or not would require more and better pics. From the pic, the print looks white and not gilt or recessed, so I'm guessing it's a fake dial.

There's no question it's not real.

[1watch]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

There's no question it's not real.

I'm admittedly not a gilt Sub expert and haven't studied the variances in their dials and print, fonts, etc. I do know the lumes look correct from one not so great pic and sometimes lighting can make gilt print appear white, as it has on my 1675 gilt closed chapter ring at an angle. Would be of interest to see more pics or hear the follow-up on this listing. Either way, that dial does not belong in that case if either are legitimate Rolex.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by 1watch

I'm admittedly not a gilt Sub expert and haven't studied the variances in their dials and print, fonts, etc. I do know the lumes look correct from one not so great pic and sometimes lighting can make gilt print appear white, as it has on my 1675 gilt closed chapter ring at an angle. Would be of interest to see more pics or hear the follow-up on this listing. Either way, that dial does not belong in that case if either are legitimate Rolex.

I should've been clearer. Yes, gilt dials CAN appear to have white print, especially w the hindrance of photos with weird ambient, or direct lighting, but in this case, that's not the case. The text looks nothing like what a gilt chapter ring text should like on an early 60s 5513. From the alignment of the text below the crown, the word SUBMARINER, the "m" for meters, the depth text, etc.

Compare it to this one.

[1watch]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

I should've been clearer. Yes, gilt dials CAN appear to have white print, especially w the hindrance of photos with weird ambient, or direct lighting, but in this case, that's not the case. The text looks nothing like what a gilt chapter ring text should like on an early 60s 5513. From the alignment of the text below the crown, the word SUBMARINER, the "m" for meters, the depth text, etc.

Compare it to this one.

Yep, clear as day that it's fake. Thanks... I hadn't taken the time to compare to a legit gilt for assessing the print.

[Dan S]

Good ending here. I contacted the seller (I'm sure that others did as well) who responded asking for clarification. They eventually pulled the auction and re-listed with corrected description.

[swish77]

Was this Sub "fake" or did it just have a badly refinished dial in the style of an older model?

Technically, and only technically, the original description wasn't necessarily inaccurate, although you could debate the semantics. Words like "authentic" and "original" don't always mean it was the way the watch came from the factory. A refinished dial, no matter how badly done, can still be an "authentic" Rolex dial in some sellers' vocabulary.

It's one of the dangers of buying off of Ebay, but in this case, it was fairly easy to recognize this Sub had issues.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by swish77

Was this Sub "fake" or did it just have a badly refinished dial in the style of an older model?

Technically, and only technically, the original description wasn't necessarily inaccurate, although you could debate the semantics. Words like "authentic" and "original" don't always mean it was the way the watch came from the factory. A refinished dial, no matter how badly done, can still be an "authentic" Rolex dial in some sellers' vocabulary.

It's one of the dangers of buying off of Ebay, but in this case, it was fairly easy to recognize this Sub had issues.

Refinished (incorrectly) or aftermarket dial. IMO these don't qualify as original but I do understand your point about semantics. In any case, I think that bad dials should be disclosed, and in this case the seller apparently agreed. Also, given eBay rules, I suspect that the original listing could have been cause for a return, had a newbie bought the watch thinking it was truly all original and then later learned the dial wasn't right.