Fake Tudor 7016 experience yesterday

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Correct.

Originally Posted by alwayshere

ah....he was referring to you going off track.

man, you really need to read these posts properly.... i'm slightly shocked you haven't connected the dots yet.

Originally Posted by larryccf

actually, you're the one that went off track

i was just confirming what kingface66 suggested but pls explain to me why you would argue with me about the disparity between the serial number's date and the late 60s production of the watch - then when i point out to you that i agreed with that position, why you just bulldozed past it and went straight to re-arguing the production date

pls, answer me that cause for the life of me i can't comprehend it unless you speed read my posts and then try to bluff your way past being wrong

do try to stay on focus with my question, in bold above, because that response of your's earlier really displays a serious disconnect on your part

kingface66 - i was simply confirming your suggestion....but it appears alwaysthere re-introducing & restating the illogical position that even though a watch was mfgr'd in 1968 doesn't mean production occurred in 1968, well somehow that re-introduction of the debate is acceptable and your suggestion doesn't apply. Yeah, that makes sense.

Hold on, hold on. Could be misunderstanding here.

1. In none of my posts did I argue against the mismatch of serial number and model number production period. I, as with many other members already, continue to support that a 300XXX serial is far earlier than what we know 7016 were produced.

The hypothesis is that the case is questionable, at least. I think we are on the same page here. Big gap, that serial number shouldn't be seen with the case number - hard to dispute otherwise, correct? Okay. My question is, where are you reading me arguing against this?

2. My comment around the 1968 caseback and a 1969 "official" starting period of the 7016 was simply that something manufactured in 1968 then being "released" one year later is up to the brand to define. Its so close that you can believe either year to be acceptable. My question (and also Kingface's point) is what does this have to do with the watch in question here given OP's watch has such a large gap 1960 vs. 1968/1969.

Anyway Larry. Lets move on. Enough craziness in this world right now to have you and I go back and forth on a forum. Stay safe.

[heuermonaco]

I took only a couple of Iphone pics upon inspection ... and when I realised what I had I hightailed it back to the auctioneers ...

- if anyone wants some particular aspect of a photo blown up I’ll do so with what I’ve got - sorry about the quality the size limitations for pics here hamstrings me

- the first digit ‘3’ is clearly a ‘3’ folks

[larryccf]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Hold on, hold on. Could be misunderstanding here.

1. In none of my posts did I argue against the mismatch of serial number and model number production period. I, as with many other members already, continue to support that a 300XXX serial is far earlier than what we know 7016 were produced.

The hypothesis is that the case is questionable, at least. I think we are on the same page here. Big gap, that serial number shouldn't be seen with the case number - hard to dispute otherwise, correct? Okay. My question is, where are you reading me arguing against this?

2. My comment around the 1968 caseback and a 1969 "official" starting period of the 7016 was simply that something manufactured in 1968 then being "released" one year later is up to the brand to define. Its so close that you can believe either year to be acceptable. My question (and also Kingface's point) is what does this have to do with the watch in question here given OP's watch has such a large gap 1960 vs. 1968/1969.

Anyway Larry. Lets move on. Enough craziness in this world right now to have you and I go back and forth on a forum. Stay safe.

alwaysthere - this response is exactly what i've been talking about - your position seems to change like a mexican jumping bean on a chessboard.

1) you argued at me like i was denying the disparity in serial number and the known production date of the 7016. That's when i responded "you realize i agree with you, right?" - to not know that you would have to have been reading my posts at the speed of light, as 3 times i had asserted the S/N and the lack of rub marks were inescapable. And yet you tell me that i'm speed reading your posts

You came back with a curt 'right" and bulldozed right past and went straight back to arguing about the production date, - another position change that really amounted to just changing the argument.

When I asked you, just a few posts back, if you knew we were on the same page regarding the S/N's date not in synch with the known production date, WHY WOULD YOU ARGUE AT ME LIKE I WAS DENYING THAT S/N date disparity? - (Considering you responded "right", i'm beyond mystified why).

The only conclusion i can speculate is you speed reading at light speed +.

Please do us both a favor and if you're going to respond to anything i post, read it at the speed of dial up internet svc - at my age I don't tolerate mental abuse well.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by larryccf

alwaysthere - this response is exactly what i've been talking about - your position seems to change like a mexican jumping bean on a chessboard.

1) you argued at me like i was denying the disparity in serial number and the known production date of the 7016. That's when i responded "you realize i agree with you, right?" - to not know that you would have to have been reading my posts at the speed of light, as 3 times i had asserted the S/N and the lack of rub marks were inescapable. And yet you tell me that i'm speed reading your posts

You came back with a curt 'right" and bulldozed right past and went straight back to arguing about the production date, - another position change that really amounted to just changing the argument.

When I asked you, just a few posts back, if you knew we were on the same page regarding the S/N's date not in synch with the known production date, WHY WOULD YOU ARGUE AT ME LIKE I WAS DENYING THAT S/N date disparity? - (Considering you responded "right", i'm beyond mystified why).

The only conclusion i can speculate is you speed reading at light speed +.

Please do us both a favor and if you're going to respond to anything i post, read it at the speed of dial up internet svc - at my age I don't tolerate mental abuse well.

Okay, call it bad reading from my end then.

Sorry, OP. We went way off-track.

If you followed all of our verbal diarrhea, the watch feels like a franken-watch at best. Glad you returned.

[Fredrik]

The first digit '3' looks like a re-engraved '7' with that hook...

[bayareabuggs]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Okay, call it bad reading from my end then.

Sorry, OP. We went way off-track.

If you followed all of our verbal diarrhea, the watch feels like a franken-watch at best. Glad you returned.

[GGGMT]

I rather like the watch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk