Fake 16220?

[NHav8or]

And from a Jeweler no less!

Case looks really bad - wokky rehaut and hour hand interfering with date?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rolex-Dateju...item1c202a1012

[bayerische]

No sure...

Well used, but nothing screams fake to me.

[316lad]

Originally Posted by bayerische

No sure...

Well used, but nothing screams fake to me.

I concur.
Definitely well worn bracelet.
But I would say the watch is good.
All the 'little bits' are in the right place.

[NHav8or]

Seriously?!?! Show me one gen datejust that has a rehaut like that. The date window doesn't even line up with the cyclops and the hour hand is running half way through the date! It would seem like the fitted a midsized dial into a full size case somehow - which would explain that rehaut.

[GradyPhilpott]

I call fake.

[robm]

My vote is real. 100% feedback with plenty of high end watches. A fake wouldn't last long enough to have that much stretch. An X serial number would put it back in 1991.

[316lad]

I change my call to Frankenwatch but rolex bits.

[laphroaig007]

This watch looks real to me, used but real.
Rehaut is plain and normal, hands are ok. I don't really share your point of view. Please tell us more about what worries you about this watch.
I bought my 16610LV fat four from the same Ebay seller, I got the watch verified by a watchmaker from a French AD, everything was ok.
So please tell us more about your concerns.

[xjeeunitx]

I'm actually thinking that the dial should be in question. If anything, the dial is not original to the watch. I've never seen an older model DJ with that dial.

[dysondiver]

looks like the dial is the wrong size in the case ,,,, but is that posable

[316lad]

Here's another "Extra-Large" rehaut.

Maybe it's a rare model.

Going to further ammend my opinion to - Benefit of the doubt - but wouldn't buy it.

[NHav8or]

Originally Posted by laphroaig007

Rehaut is plain and normal, hands are ok. I don't really share your point of view. Please tell us more about what worries you about this watch.

The rehaut looks wokky - conical - not straight. From the 16013 and 16030 I own, they are straight. Pics of Datejust's I've poured over have straight rehauts. Perhaps its the crystal. It could be aftermarket and distorting the angle.

But look closely at the second pic. The close up of the face. You will see the hour hand going halfway through the date. The date in the window is either 28 or 18, but you can't tell because the hour hand is covering it. On both of mine and one every other 16XXX I've seen, the hour hand neatly sweeps by the date just at the edge of the window. Not through it.

Third the date and the cyclops do not match up. I know taken from different angles this can look like the case on practically any watch - but it doesn't line up.

I agree that everything else looks fine. Even though we don't get a shot of the stampings on the bracelet and the coronet is practically worn off. The engine turned bezel looks good. You can even make out the crimps on the back of the crown, so it's gen too.

But if you have a Datejust that the hour hand marches it's way through the date window, or can direct me to a picture of one that does, I say something is fishy.

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by 316lad

Here's another "Extra-Large" rehaut.

Maybe it's a rare model.

Going to further ammend my opinion to - Benefit of the doubt - but wouldn't buy it.

Well this is definitely a fake...

I just don't see "fake" in the original post...

[316lad]

I see a big sign that says: AVOID, because I'm really not sure.

Note to self: Increase knowledge of ladies' Rolex OR Rolex Ladies!!!

[NHav8or]

One helping of Crow, please.

A buddy of mine who didn't wish to publicly shame me sent me a pic of his gen 16030 with the minute hand over the date.

Move along people, nothing to see here. . .