Need help with a 16223

[V.lats97nsx]

Hey guy's wanted to thank you ahead of time for any advice. My friend is trying to buy a 16223 and he sent me these pictures to help authenticate. I am very bad with pictures. If you could help at all that would be great. It seems lile it's an early 16233 since it has lug holes.uploadfromtaptalk1436314838400.jpguploadfromtaptalk1436314887405.jpg

[crowncollection]

Looks ok IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[V.lats97nsx]

Originally Posted by crowncollection

Looks ok IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you. The only concern i had was the 16233 engraving.

[hunterp27]

The only thing bothering me is that it doesn't seem to have the normal aging that would accompany a watch of this age. Maybe it was a safe queen and jut didn't get worn?

[jvmartin]

I have seen some uneven engraving as well on other watches... it makes me a bit uneasy. Any chance for a movement shot? Everything else looks just fine.

[Randy9999]

It's never too late to answer these. (OK, so maybe it is. But for the sake of discussion and learning, I'm reopening this one.)

There are a few red flags here imo...

1) As another poster mentioned, the numbers in the model reference aren't engraved evenly, i.e., the "2" in "16233" is lower than the other numbers.

2) With regard to the "455 B" designation stamped into the end lug, the "B" looks like it was sloppily applied in such a way that the "B" seems almost to crawl off the edge.

3) What bothers me the most, though: Some of the little round luminous "pips" (dots) adjacent to the end of each hour marker on the dial aren't aligned correctly with their associated metal markers. Note especially the ones at 10 o'clock and 6 o'clock. Rolex just doesn't make that kind of mistake.

Anybody else bothered by these items as well? Any confirmation/disconfirmation will likely help someone else down the line.

[jvmartin]

I have also seen the lower 2s before. Nothing stands out to me as fake...