The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 20 May 2020, 03:40 AM   #1
Mitcher4
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 29
Hulk Authentication Support

Hi All,

Just received my new Hulk and wanted to get a spot verification check from the forum while I'm still in the grace period. Pictures attached, I can provide more if specific areas are called out.

Thanks in advance!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_9223.jpg (171.8 KB, 734 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_9225.jpg (292.3 KB, 725 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_9226.jpg (280.9 KB, 714 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_9227.jpg (285.4 KB, 721 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_9222.jpg (132.3 KB, 726 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_9224.jpg (164.3 KB, 734 views)
Mitcher4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 03:56 AM   #2
Mitcher4
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 29
Quick follow-up to say that i CAN see the LEC. I don't think I'll be able to get it in pictures, and I can't see it clear enough to notice specific detailing. But assuming that its existence is a good indicator of authenticity?
Mitcher4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 05:27 AM   #3
MacanS
"TRF" Member
 
MacanS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Somewhere
Watch: Hulk, Z blue
Posts: 102
Something looks off with the hands
MacanS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 05:38 AM   #4
thesharkfactor
"TRF" Member
 
thesharkfactor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Online
Watch: Submariner's
Posts: 1,925
Nice watch. The presence of an LEC means nothing, that's been faked well since 2004.

Watch looks ok to me.
__________________
Proud to be not using silly nicknames for luxury watches.
thesharkfactor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 05:43 AM   #5
Mitcher4
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacanS View Post
Something looks off with the hands
Is this something to do with the shape or perceived markings on them? I can say that they look a bit scuffed in the picture but in person they are polished and that mark doesn't appear...so not sure if that is the picture or what.

Any additional clarity would be helpful!
Mitcher4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 05:53 AM   #6
dan993
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Kings Bromley
Posts: 328
Can somebody let me know when Rolex started the 5 year warranty, 2015? Why does this have a green superlative swing tag when card is dated 2013?
dan993 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 06:00 AM   #7
Mitcher4
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan993 View Post
Can somebody let me know when Rolex started the 5 year warranty, 2015? Why does this have a green superlative swing tag when card is dated 2013?
Hmm...I'm not sure if he just threw that in with everything else. The other tag has the serial number (blacked out) which matches the card and the one on the dial...just passing along more info if that's helpful.
Mitcher4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 06:15 AM   #8
MacanS
"TRF" Member
 
MacanS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Somewhere
Watch: Hulk, Z blue
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitcher4 View Post
Is this something to do with the shape or perceived markings on them? I can say that they look a bit scuffed in the picture but in person they are polished and that mark doesn't appear...so not sure if that is the picture or what.

Any additional clarity would be helpful!
The base of the hour hand seems wide, almost like a GMT. The white gold finish seems off as well
MacanS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 06:56 AM   #9
Mitcher4
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 29
It also looks like the point of the minute hand is squatter like maybe a GMT...anyone else have thoughts on the hands?

If they were replaced with GMT hands...in your opinion, would that be considered not-authentic and grounds to return under that guise?

Last edited by Mitcher4; 20 May 2020 at 06:58 AM.. Reason: added "in your opinion"
Mitcher4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 07:17 AM   #10
Mitcher4
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 29
Adding a better picture of the hour hands...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_9229.jpg (188.8 KB, 682 views)
Mitcher4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 07:20 AM   #11
MacanS
"TRF" Member
 
MacanS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Somewhere
Watch: Hulk, Z blue
Posts: 102
That is not right at all. Look at the pictures yourself. I would return immediately
MacanS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 07:21 AM   #12
Al1969
2020 Pledge Member
 
Al1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,271
I think Rolex went to a 5 year warranty around 2015(red tag).
__________________
Rolex SUB LV, WG SUB, GMTc Master II 116718, Seadweller 43,
Al1969 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 07:35 AM   #13
Mitcher4
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacanS View Post
That is not right at all. Look at the pictures yourself. I would return immediately
Yep, you're right. I looked at it against hi-res GMT and Submariner pictures and it looks like GMT hands got put on there at some point. Initiated return.

Thanks for the help.
Mitcher4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 07:38 AM   #14
77T
2020 HARRODS SGE Pledge Member
 
77T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 33,088
There is more than the hands wrong with it - glad you’re returning it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________


Does anyone really know what time it is?
77T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 07:45 AM   #15
Al1969
2020 Pledge Member
 
Al1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,271
Who’s the seller OP?
__________________
Rolex SUB LV, WG SUB, GMTc Master II 116718, Seadweller 43,
Al1969 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 07:58 AM   #16
Mitcher4
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by 77T View Post
There is more than the hands wrong with it - glad you’re returning it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Could you elaborate in case I run into any issues?

I've spoken with them and have a shipping label. I've documented through Chrono24 and indicated the issues with the hands. However, I'd love to know anything else that seems off in case I need that in my back pocket.

Thanks!
Mitcher4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 08:00 AM   #17
GGGMT
2020 Pledge Member
 
GGGMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Itinerant
Watch: 1601
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitcher4 View Post
Quick follow-up to say that i CAN see the LEC. I don't think I'll be able to get it in pictures, and I can't see it clear enough to notice specific detailing. But assuming that its existence is a good indicator of authenticity?

Please identify the seller! No one has a privacy interest in Knowingly or unknowingly hawking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
GGGMT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 09:11 AM   #18
ganiccus
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Alex
Location: Quebec, Canada
Watch: Explorer II 216570
Posts: 256
crown guards look off to me, they should protrude slightly more than that if you know what I mean. numbers on the bezel tick me off also, they look like they are not moulded in the ceramic bezel and PVD coated with platinum.
and that fat hour hand is definitely the most suspect hint of a fake. you should buy a 10-20x loupe and inspect the finish of the dial. indecises, rivet at the center of the hands, white gold of the minute hand especially, lettering, etc. if most of these parts look botched, you will have a pretty good idea that it is a cheap replica.
ganiccus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 11:45 AM   #19
Rick Deckard
"TRF" Member
 
Rick Deckard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Real Name: Chris
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 75
Sold in 2013 should be red seal/tag, switch from red to green was 07/01/2015 together with the warranty extension to 5 years.

Dial is a MK III: "Date" starts under but within the "X" of "Rolex", no space between "300" and "m", no double space after "=", long "f" in "feet", "1" just an "I", fat print for "Rolex" and "Submariner".

MK III starts mid-2016 until today. Not likely that it found it's way into a 2013 watch.

To differentiate:

MK I (2010- mid 2016) has "Date" starting to the right of the "X" of "Rolex", there is a space between "300" and "m", there is a double gap between "=" and "m", the "f" in "feet" is short, the "1" looks like a "7", not like an "I" and the print of "Submariner" is a bit thinner.

MK II (mid 2013 - early 2015) has "Date" starting to the right of the "X" of "Rolex", there is a space between "300" and "m", there is no double gap between "=" and "m", the "f" in "feet" is short, the "1" looks like a "7", not like an "I" and the print of "Submariner" is a bit thinner.

About 50 Hulks from 10/2010 to 08/2019 were used as a sample group to compare and derive the date cut-offs. Therefore, the dates may not be entirely accurate, but they give a good indication that a MK III dial does not fit with a 2013 watch.
__________________
Life is too short for just one Rolex!

Current Lineup: 1601 - 16030 - 69178 - 16570T - 116610LV Mk. III - 116600 - 126600 Mk. II - 116710BLRO Mk. III - 126711CHNR - 116500LN(WD) - 116500LN(BD) - 116500LN(BD) - 326934WD
Rick Deckard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 May 2020, 12:54 PM   #20
GGGMT
2020 Pledge Member
 
GGGMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Itinerant
Watch: 1601
Posts: 2,969
Who’s the seller OP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
GGGMT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21 May 2020, 01:25 AM   #21
antrolexsub
"TRF" Member
 
antrolexsub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Earth
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Deckard View Post
Sold in 2013 should be red seal/tag, switch from red to green was 07/01/2015 together with the warranty extension to 5 years.

Dial is a MK III: "Date" starts under but within the "X" of "Rolex", no space between "300" and "m", no double space after "=", long "f" in "feet", "1" just an "I", fat print for "Rolex" and "Submariner".

MK III starts mid-2016 until today. Not likely that it found it's way into a 2013 watch.

To differentiate:

MK I (2010- mid 2016) has "Date" starting to the right of the "X" of "Rolex", there is a space between "300" and "m", there is a double gap between "=" and "m", the "f" in "feet" is short, the "1" looks like a "7", not like an "I" and the print of "Submariner" is a bit thinner.

MK II (mid 2013 - early 2015) has "Date" starting to the right of the "X" of "Rolex", there is a space between "300" and "m", there is no double gap between "=" and "m", the "f" in "feet" is short, the "1" looks like a "7", not like an "I" and the print of "Submariner" is a bit thinner.

About 50 Hulks from 10/2010 to 08/2019 were used as a sample group to compare and derive the date cut-offs. Therefore, the dates may not be entirely accurate, but they give a good indication that a MK III dial does not fit with a 2013 watch.
Dial is fake as are the hands and possibly bezel insert. Look at the bottom of the ‘X’ in the ‘ROLEX’ text. Not sure on the rest from those pictures.

Edit: Lugs look a bit too fat for my liking. OP can you open the watch?
antrolexsub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 May 2020, 01:46 AM   #22
Rick Deckard
"TRF" Member
 
Rick Deckard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Real Name: Chris
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by antrolexsub View Post
Dial is fake as are the hands and possibly bezel insert. Look at the bottom of the ‘X’ in the ‘ROLEX’ text. Not sure on the rest from those pictures.
I did not mean to imply that the dial is genuine or fake, just the style is that of a 2016 and onward Mk III dial for a Hulk.
__________________
Life is too short for just one Rolex!

Current Lineup: 1601 - 16030 - 69178 - 16570T - 116610LV Mk. III - 116600 - 126600 Mk. II - 116710BLRO Mk. III - 126711CHNR - 116500LN(WD) - 116500LN(BD) - 116500LN(BD) - 326934WD
Rick Deckard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 May 2020, 03:14 AM   #23
Topspin14m
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Boston
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Deckard View Post
I did not mean to imply that the dial is genuine or fake, just the style is that of a 2016 and onward Mk III dial for a Hulk.
Yes but if antrolexsub says it is fake, it's fake... If I were OP I would be all hands on deck getting my money back.
Topspin14m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 May 2020, 03:48 AM   #24
chris242
2020 HARRODS SGE Pledge Member
 
chris242's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Bahamas
Watch: 116610lv
Posts: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Deckard View Post
Sold in 2013 should be red seal/tag, switch from red to green was 07/01/2015 together with the warranty extension to 5 years.

Dial is a MK III: "Date" starts under but within the "X" of "Rolex", no space between "300" and "m", no double space after "=", long "f" in "feet", "1" just an "I", fat print for "Rolex" and "Submariner".

MK III starts mid-2016 until today. Not likely that it found it's way into a 2013 watch.

To differentiate:

MK I (2010- mid 2016) has "Date" starting to the right of the "X" of "Rolex", there is a space between "300" and "m", there is a double gap between "=" and "m", the "f" in "feet" is short, the "1" looks like a "7", not like an "I" and the print of "Submariner" is a bit thinner.

MK II (mid 2013 - early 2015) has "Date" starting to the right of the "X" of "Rolex", there is a space between "300" and "m", there is no double gap between "=" and "m", the "f" in "feet" is short, the "1" looks like a "7", not like an "I" and the print of "Submariner" is a bit thinner.

About 50 Hulks from 10/2010 to 08/2019 were used as a sample group to compare and derive the date cut-offs. Therefore, the dates may not be entirely accurate, but they give a good indication that a MK III dial does not fit with a 2013 watch.

first thing i noticed too. def something fishy about this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
chris242 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 May 2020, 07:42 AM   #25
Mitcher4
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 29
Hi All,

Thank you again for all of your help. I've historically been an Omega and JLC guy and so definitely did not have the immediate eye for what you all caught outside of all the various authenticity checks I was able to find on the web. As there seems to be some interest in this post, I do want to add a bit more detail:

1. I would normally want to see in-person but given recent circumstances, decided to try my hand online. I went with a dealer who has 5 stars reviews across the board, on google, on Chrono24, etc. and a great many happy rolex sales in those reviews. They have a brick and mortar location. They had a 14-day return policy and I used the Chrono24 escrow service. I did get pictures in advance and communicated with the seller but as mentioned, wasn't able to identify what you all saw. I would not have made a purchase this way with anything less than what I listed above.

2. They were very communicative about when they were shipping, not wanting to ship over the weekend and instead waiting until the Monday to send it out (while money sat in escrow). They shipped it Monday. I got it Tuesday with everything promised. This thread occured. I asked for a return. The dealer called me immediately and asked what was wrong and I explained. They didn't fight or push at all. They immediately issued a return label. I got it back out the door same day and it was received by the dealer this morning. They initiated the refund a few hours later. I finally let out my breath.

3. Because of all this, I am conflicted about mentioning the dealers name. I understand they should have identified this on their own but they did everything else right by me, without struggle or cost to me on shipping, VERY quickly...and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt that they will look into this watch and figure out what happened.

Thanks again to you all for the help on this. Without the quick, detailed, and thoughtful responses, I would've been up shit creek.
Mitcher4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 May 2020, 10:06 AM   #26
thesharkfactor
"TRF" Member
 
thesharkfactor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Online
Watch: Submariner's
Posts: 1,925
Good for you, well done.

I smell a rat in your dealer though. These guys know a fake watch. I wonder how many folk get duped and keep the fake watch(es).
__________________
Proud to be not using silly nicknames for luxury watches.
thesharkfactor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 May 2020, 10:34 AM   #27
SDREW22
"TRF" Member
 
SDREW22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: NY
Watch: 14060m
Posts: 216
Glad it worked out. Scary situation.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
SDREW22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 May 2020, 01:03 PM   #28
CorradoBrit
"TRF" Member
 
CorradoBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 1,330
Wasn't Chris Essery @Horology House was it? He was also very communicative. Name the vendor so others don't fall foul. By not calling out rogue vendors 'buyers' are in effect perpetuating the problem.
CorradoBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21 May 2020, 01:59 PM   #29
GGGMT
2020 Pledge Member
 
GGGMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Itinerant
Watch: 1601
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesharkfactor View Post

I smell a rat in your dealer though. These guys know a fake watch. I wonder how many folk get duped and keep the fake watch(es).

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
GGGMT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21 May 2020, 02:02 PM   #30
GGGMT
2020 Pledge Member
 
GGGMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Itinerant
Watch: 1601
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitcher4 View Post
Hi All,

Because of all this, I am conflicted about mentioning the dealers name. I understand they should have...
I would call on you to stand tall and honor your friends and colleagues on this forum who saved your arsh and name the dealer. By naming the dealer, it’s not calling them out for fraud or misleading — you’re just stating the facts. In fact, your email string here makes it quite clear that you’re giving them the benefit of the doubt. At the very least, they made a mistake that’s quite serious and everyone here has the right to know. Be strong — find your voice!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
GGGMT is online now   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


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





Copyright ©2004-2020, 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.