ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

sapphire65 · 1 September 2010, 08:01 AM

I am new to this forum, but have been collecting for about 15 years. I just picked up this Day Date, and really like it, but now some of my expert friends tell me it is fake. The reference number is 18118, and the serial is 6,3xx,xxx, placing it around 1980. Except for the unusual bezel, it looks like a nice vintage Pres, and looks real to me.

Any ideas? Need advice...

Thanks,

sapphire65

JPersat · 1 September 2010, 08:09 AM

It looks okay to me, but I am not an expert on the presidents.

Idle Swede · 1 September 2010, 08:15 AM

Are you sure you got the #'s right?

Have you popped the strap and checked the ref. #?

Duster · 1 September 2010, 08:25 AM

A quick search for that #............nothing........I would take to watchmaker
and open it.

sapphire65 · 1 September 2010, 08:30 AM

yes, I have taken the leather strap off. the reference is 18118.

TimeToGo · 1 September 2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapphire65

yes, I have taken the leather strap off. the reference is 18118.

Welcome to the forum!

The reference numbers are no good!

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

Welcome to the forum!

The reference numbers are no good!

--------

Are you sure? Lets not rush to judgement. I think this "may" a good one. Possibly rare. I saw one 6 months or so ago and thought it was straight up. I checked with some friends (one on this board) and all said "Fake". I passed on it.

I have kicking myself ever since, as it really looked correct. It had a funky bezel. I will see if I still have pics on my hard drive.

Can we see pics?

Jeff

Idle Swede · 1 September 2010, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff hess

--------

Are you sure? Lets not rush to judgement. I think this "may" a good one. Possibly rare. I saw one 6 months or so ago and thought it was straight up. I checked with some friends (one on this board) and all said "Fake". I passed on it.

I have kicking myself ever since, as it really looked correct. It had a funky bezel. I will see if I still have pics on my hard drive.

Can we see pics?

Jeff

Hey Jeff,

Are you saying this is a legit ref #?

If it is, it must be extremly rare.

I must say though the watch looks good in the pictures.

TimeToGo · 1 September 2010, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff hess

--------

Are you sure? Lets not rush to judgement. I think this "may" a good one. Possibly rare. I saw one 6 months or so ago and thought it was straight up. I checked with some friends (one on this board) and all said "Fake". I passed on it.

I have kicking myself ever since, as it really looked correct. It had a funky bezel. I will see if I still have pics on my hard drive.

Can we see pics?

Jeff

I am not calling this watch a fake. All I said was the reference numbers were no good.

Michael M. · 1 September 2010, 09:42 AM

Looks real, but the reference # ?

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 09:46 AM

Took my computer a while to load....

I just saw the pics above.

This looks like the one I saw a few months back.

I remember looking on line for days and could not find anything but it really looked good.

Anyone?

Jeff

TimeToGo · 1 September 2010, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Took my computer a while to load....

I just saw the pics above.

This looks like the one I saw a few months back.

I remember looking on line for days and could not find anything but it really looked good.

Anyone?

Jeff

I think all on this thread believe this to be a nice looking watch, we are only questioning the reference number?

Idle Swede · 1 September 2010, 09:51 AM

Only one way to confirm,

pop the caseback.

TimeToGo · 1 September 2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

Only one way to confirm,

pop the caseback.

I say.....Pop a bottle, sip...sip...sip... then open the case back!

Idle Swede · 1 September 2010, 09:56 AM

BTW Jeff, how come you have time to spend with us here?

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 10:22 AM

I check in every month or so.

These guys are SO smart about 1980's and newer stuff that I learn a lot here.

Plus I like to help out with vintage when I can.

Jeff

tudorman8276 · 1 September 2010, 10:25 AM

...when Rolex watches become aged or had a limited issue, they will no longer be listed in ref material.

...here is an example of a page from an R 20 cat dtd 1990 that does NOT show the ref# in question.

...however, that in and of itself, does NOT mean that it never existed.

...it's not too often I can say it, BUT, I am with Jeff on this one.

...you SHOULD take the watch to an AD and have them open it for you and check to see the movement. As you can see on the page pictured, the movements for ALL these early watches were either 1555 or 1556 mvmts.

...let us KNOW once you have verified the movement!!

TimeToGo · 1 September 2010, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff hess

I check in every month or so.

These guys are SO smart about 1980's and newer stuff that I learn a lot here.

Plus I like to help out with vintage when I can.

Jeff

VERY much appreciated!

tudorman8276 · 1 September 2010, 10:27 AM

Picture 003.jpg

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 10:48 AM

Tudor,

Not a stretch to add one number on the end of that 1811 you show.

Jeff

Thinking that this thing might be real.

tudorman8276 · 1 September 2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Tudor,

Not a stretch to add one number on the end of that 1811 you show.

Jeff

Thinking that this thing might be real.

...then it is a "DUCK".

springer · 1 September 2010, 11:26 AM

As others noted, there is no such reference number, if that is the reference number. While it might look genuine, and have some genuine parts, that does not make the watch genuine, if there is no reference number for this particular watch shown here.

Maybe it's a one-off for the King of Jordon.

Be careful on your posts here!

I'm bidding.

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 11:39 AM

Springer,

As I have often mentioned....Rolex knowledge is not a finite thing.

Research is indeed, a meandering and ongoing and ever changing thing.

You will note that in all of my writings for magazines and "The book", I rarely say "Rolex never" and "this does not exist" and rarely, unless the most blatant of fakes "this is a fake".

One of the reasons I started my Rolex newsletter 'zine and later co-authored the book, was because of dealers loud and assertive pronouncements that a watch I knew to be real "was absolutely fake!"

You "may" be right. But.......it looks good so far.

Jeff

BarkMaster · 1 September 2010, 12:37 PM

Y'all know WAY more than I do, but here are my thoughts...

If that is a valid reference, wouldn't it break down like this:

181 = Day/Date
1 = Finely-engine-turned
8 = 18k YG

Are there any other examples of this "Finely-engine-turned" bezel finish and does it look like the picture?

Many of the reference charts I've seen do not have the "7" = Bark listed, so it wouldn't shock me if these lists didn't include everything...

The way the bezel looks like it could be somewhat consistent with other jewelry finishes of that time period (1980's per the serial #). It's like a smoothed out nugget finish. It's not bark, but I like it! lol

Here's my concern: were there champagne stick dials from that period that are like this one in that it doesn't have the little white dots at the end of the sticks? All the ones I've seen do, but I admittedly have not seen that many and I am by no mean experienced in such matters....

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 12:57 PM

I checked every web site I could and checked all of my reference books...including 1980's Corrigans master catalogues and many other Rolex and watch material I own and I could not find it.

Frustrating.

Jeff

Idle Swede · 1 September 2010, 12:59 PM

To the OP,

could you please show us a "between the lugs" picture?

jeff hess · 1 September 2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 777

Y'all know WAY more than I do, but here are my thoughts...

If that is a valid reference, wouldn't it break down like this:

181 = Day/Date
1 = Finely-engine-turned
8 = 18k Yg

The way the bezel looks like it could be somewhat consistent with other jewelry finishes of that time period (1980's per the serial #). It's like a smoothed out nugget finish. It's not bark, but I like it! lol

Here's my concern: were there champagne stick dials from that period that are like this one in that it doesn't have the little white dots at the end of the sticks? All the ones I've seen do, but I admittedly have not seen that many and I am by no mean experienced in such matters....

you are correct about the last number meaning 18k gold case.

The plot thickens...

Jeff

sapphire65 · 2 September 2010, 02:39 AM

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I guess the jury is still out on this one, but I now have some valid clues to help in my research...

Does anyone have any more ideas?

sapphire65

BarkMaster · 2 September 2010, 09:27 AM

Are you going to have it opened and peek inside?

Idle Swede · 2 September 2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

To the OP,

could you please show us a "between the lugs" picture?

Looks like we're not going to see one.

1 September 2010, 10:25 AM	#17
tudorman8276 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: STAN Location: KY-USA Watch: Rolex Prez Posts: 12,584	...mmmmmmmm... ...when Rolex watches become aged or had a limited issue, they will no longer be listed in ref material. ...here is an example of a page from an R 20 cat dtd 1990 that does NOT show the ref# in question. ...however, that in and of itself, does NOT mean that it never existed. ...it's not too often I can say it, BUT, I am with Jeff on this one. ...you SHOULD take the watch to an AD and have them open it for you and check to see the movement. As you can see on the page pictured, the movements for ALL these early watches were either 1555 or 1556 mvmts. ...let us KNOW once you have verified the movement!!

1 September 2010, 10:27 AM	#19
tudorman8276 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: STAN Location: KY-USA Watch: Rolex Prez Posts: 12,584	...forgot the damned pic...SENIOR MOMENT... Picture 003.jpg

1 September 2010, 11:26 AM	#22
springer 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: jP Location: Texas Watch: GMT-MASTER Posts: 17,220	As others noted, there is no such reference number, if that is the reference number. While it might look genuine, and have some genuine parts, that does not make the watch genuine, if there is no reference number for this particular watch shown here. Maybe it's a one-off for the King of Jordon. Be careful on your posts here! I'm bidding. __________________ Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics.

1 September 2010, 12:37 PM	#24
BarkMaster "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Texas Watch: 18078 YG DD Posts: 7,962	Y'all know WAY more than I do, but here are my thoughts... If that is a valid reference, wouldn't it break down like this: 181 = Day/Date 1 = Finely-engine-turned 8 = 18k YG Are there any other examples of this "Finely-engine-turned" bezel finish and does it look like the picture? Many of the reference charts I've seen do not have the "7" = Bark listed, so it wouldn't shock me if these lists didn't include everything... The way the bezel looks like it could be somewhat consistent with other jewelry finishes of that time period (1980's per the serial #). It's like a smoothed out nugget finish. It's not bark, but I like it! lol Here's my concern: were there champagne stick dials from that period that are like this one in that it doesn't have the little white dots at the end of the sticks? All the ones I've seen do, but I admittedly have not seen that many and I am by no mean experienced in such matters.... __________________ BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK

2 September 2010, 09:27 AM	#29
BarkMaster "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Texas Watch: 18078 YG DD Posts: 7,962	Are you going to have it opened and peek inside? __________________ BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK

1 September 2010, 08:09 AM	#2
JPersat "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Jarrett Location: San Antonio TX Watch: ing everybody Posts: 1,515	It looks okay to me, but I am not an expert on the presidents.

1 September 2010, 08:15 AM	#3
Idle Swede Suspended Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Leo Location: Boca Raton Posts: 13,820	Are you sure you got the #'s right? Have you popped the strap and checked the ref. #?

1 September 2010, 08:25 AM	#4
Duster "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: Bob Location: los angeles,Ca. Watch: ss rolex sub date Posts: 138	A quick search for that #............nothing........I would take to watchmaker and open it.

1 September 2010, 08:30 AM	#5
sapphire65 Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: florida Posts: 16	yes, I have taken the leather strap off. the reference is 18118.

1 September 2010, 09:42 AM	#10
Michael M. Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Newport Beach, CA Posts: 8,391	Looks real, but the reference # ?

1 September 2010, 09:46 AM	#11
jeff hess "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Jeffrey P Hess Location: florida Watch: Patek and Ball Posts: 516	Took my computer a while to load.... I just saw the pics above. This looks like the one I saw a few months back. I remember looking on line for days and could not find anything but it really looked good. Anyone? Jeff

1 September 2010, 09:51 AM	#13
Idle Swede Suspended Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Leo Location: Boca Raton Posts: 13,820	Only one way to confirm, pop the caseback.

1 September 2010, 09:56 AM	#15
Idle Swede Suspended Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Leo Location: Boca Raton Posts: 13,820	BTW Jeff, how come you have time to spend with us here?

1 September 2010, 10:22 AM	#16
jeff hess "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Jeffrey P Hess Location: florida Watch: Patek and Ball Posts: 516	I check in every month or so. These guys are SO smart about 1980's and newer stuff that I learn a lot here. Plus I like to help out with vintage when I can. Jeff

1 September 2010, 10:48 AM	#20
jeff hess "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Jeffrey P Hess Location: florida Watch: Patek and Ball Posts: 516	Tudor, Not a stretch to add one number on the end of that 1811 you show. Jeff Thinking that this thing might be real.

1 September 2010, 11:39 AM	#23
jeff hess "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Jeffrey P Hess Location: florida Watch: Patek and Ball Posts: 516	Springer, As I have often mentioned....Rolex knowledge is not a finite thing. Research is indeed, a meandering and ongoing and ever changing thing. You will note that in all of my writings for magazines and "The book", I rarely say "Rolex never" and "this does not exist" and rarely, unless the most blatant of fakes "this is a fake". One of the reasons I started my Rolex newsletter 'zine and later co-authored the book, was because of dealers loud and assertive pronouncements that a watch I knew to be real "was absolutely fake!" You "may" be right. But.......it looks good so far. Jeff

1 September 2010, 12:57 PM	#25
jeff hess "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Jeffrey P Hess Location: florida Watch: Patek and Ball Posts: 516	I checked every web site I could and checked all of my reference books...including 1980's Corrigans master catalogues and many other Rolex and watch material I own and I could not find it. Frustrating. Jeff

1 September 2010, 12:59 PM	#26
Idle Swede Suspended Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Leo Location: Boca Raton Posts: 13,820	To the OP, could you please show us a "between the lugs" picture?

2 September 2010, 02:39 AM	#28
sapphire65 Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: florida Posts: 16	Thanks for all the feedback so far. I guess the jury is still out on this one, but I now have some valid clues to help in my research... Does anyone have any more ideas? sapphire65

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