I think I'm getting paranoid.. 16013

[sentinel]

Hi guys,

Thanks in advande for any feedback.

Bought this from a london based trusted seller on chrono24. Price was fair. Certificate serial checks out with the one on the watch. But arg! Meant to be a 30th present for the wife

The dial - does it check out?

[sentinel]

Specifically - when comparing woth some online photos - the E seems very close to the X in "ROLEX" on the upper line.

[sentinel]

Specifically there seems to be too small a gap between the E and the X in "ROLEX" upper line. Also, the gold in the endlinks (the side pointing towards the rest of the bracelet" seems to have rubbed off a bit, although these arent solid gold, so I suppose that could happen, right?

[Haywood_Milton]

I think the dial is okay, but not convinced by the end link. What number is underneath it, 455/455 B (bicolour, correct) or 555/555 B (incorrect, all-steel)?

Even if it is a 455/455 B you may still have a problem.

On a correct bicolour 455/455 B end-link for such a 62523H Jubilee bracelet the yellow metal part is an applied piece of 18ct gold, not a plated section. It should not be possible for this part itself to be worn such that steel shows underneath.

It is not unknown for that yellow metal "cap" to come off altogether. This can be remedied well - or poorly.....

Haywood

[Vlad]

Haywood, It might be the light playing tricks on the color. I do not think that any steel is showing through the gold. It looks like the gold part of the end links is slightly raised (i.e. applied). The dial looks good, the magnification looks good. If the watch is real (check the case, check the movement, etc.) I really would doubt that anyone would fake a standard DJ dial - they are too common to fake.

[sentinel]

Took a few more pictures. Circled the areas which in where i think the gold has slightly faded. Although i admit, its very hard to tell.

Every bit og feedback is welcome.

[mui.richard]

If the dial text on my 16014 is a good basis for comparison then OP's dial text does seem to be a bit off?



a watch is meant to be worn

[sentinel]

post #6 - this is exactly what I mean. The space between the E and the X seems short. Also i compared the alignment of the different letters in the text beneath the markers. Specifically the alignment of the "H" in "CHRONOMETER" and the C in "CERTIFIED" underneath. This however, seems to differ between dials.

Hoping experts can spread some light on this. Thanks.

[el_relojero]

See my dial for comparison (it's also a 16013)

The ROLEX word is very clear and without uneven spaces

[Haywood_Milton]

In the image now circled, the applied gold top-piece of the end link is polished down onto the curved steel base as it drops below the "waist" of the link - this is quite correct on a 455 / 455 B end link.

I have already stated that I believe this particular dial to be quite correct but those who think that a plain Datejust dial is so common as not to be copied are quite wrong. I have come across a number in recent years and there is a sound reason for same. In the UK a dial is several hundred pounds from Rolex and for most people will be available only in tandem with a full service costing much more.

Yes, for those of us in the trade they may be more accessible, especially any of us who happened to pick up the best part of £100k of dials from a national agent who wanted to raise some cash a couple of years ago :-)

There are many variants of dials used in even just the 160xx series of Datejusts, so some of the dial comparisons suggested above are invalid.

Haywood

[Vlad]

Haywood is very much correct to press me on the point of what is 'common' vs what is 'common to those with access to parts' :)

[crowncollection]

Endlink is fine and normal, as for the dial I do agree with the op the I would want a good look under a loop as I have suspicions, o in officially is a different size as are some other letters. Lume dots appear quite unusually small and very white. I would examine this one further under a loop before making a definitive call. Just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sentinel]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I had the movement examined by a watchmaker who had his training done at an authorized Rolex dealership. Said there was nothing fishy about the movement.

Regarding the small lume dots I'd thought about this too, but when comparing it to different dials in this thread on rolex forum they seem to be quite ok http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=471161

Any other thoughs about the pictures of the watch or certificate aside from the dial?

[sentinel]

I was wandering about the lume dots too (size and color), but then cross-referenced it with alot of other dial pictures and some are actually just like this.

I had an ex-rolex-AD watchmaker check the caliber and theres nothing fishy inside, luckily.

Does anyone have comments regarding the other pictures of the watch or the certificate - or what the reason for the slight difference in lettering on the dial may be?

Thank you all.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I was wandering about the lume dots too (size and color), but then cross-referenced it with alot of other dial pictures and some are actually just like this.

I had an ex-rolex-AD watchmaker check the caliber and theres nothing fishy inside, luckily.

Does anyone have comments regarding the other pictures of the watch or the certificate - or what the reason for the slight difference in lettering on the dial may be?

Thank you all.

Why didn't he check the dial?

[sentinel]

I think he did, but didnt comment on it. He doesnt work in a rolex dealership today so he doesnt offer to do a "genuine validation" check like some ADs do. I asked him to look it over quickly, and he said it checked out.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I think he did, but didnt comment on it. He doesnt work in a rolex dealership today so he doesnt offer to do a "genuine validation" check like some ADs do. I asked him to look it over quickly, and he said it checked out.

Then I think you're right............................you are getting paranoid.

[Haywood_Milton]

Originally Posted by sentinel

.....what the reason for the slight difference in lettering on the dial may be?

In the past Rolex used a number of different dial makers and there were also different generations of dials, so you will find small but correct different versions of dials for what is ostensibly the same model. This applies to Datejust 16013s just as much as it does to 1680 Reds and all the contemporary sports models which are so much more familiar to this audience.

Haywood

[sentinel]

Thanks for the immaculate answers guys. Actually ended up handing in the watch for a true "verification" at the local AD today so I can get some paperwork confirming that the components are real and also achieve a second opinion on the caliber.

Actually owned 3 different Rolex's pre this one, but this is the first "vintage" and also a gift -
must be why Im so careful :-)

[William.L.]

Here's mine for comparison on the dial, I don't have any issues with the gold in my bracelet though.

[sentinel]

THE SAGA CONTINUES....

Ok, would love to get your feedback on this, guys.

As mentioned above, ended up handing in the watch at an AD requesting they made an me some papers verifying the watchs authenticity as they offer to do so for around $200 here in Nothern Europe - so I had some paperwork backing up the certificate.

Their watchmaker called me today with the following message;
As per rolex/house rules, he isn't able to supply me with verification papers, as the serial has somehow been "tampered" with. Now 'tampered' has a negative vibe to it, I know. I asked him to specify this and he said that the watch had somehow been "re-engraved" without being able to specify whether this was done due to the bracelet having worn the number off what the cause was.

Aside from that he assured me that everything else about the watch is completely authentic. From numbers on the bracelet he told me the watch is from 87' - which is what the certificate (and the serial on watch to match) also tells me, as it is a 9.xxx.xxx number.

What do you make of this guys? Do I call the seller and get mad, or is this sort of thing common?

Thanks.

[Haywood_Milton]

Glad he agreed with me on the dial :-)

As for the case number, I think we really need to see a macro photograph of it. Has it just been worn (annoying but not sinister) or has a number been applied by a third party? The latter can be the work of a well-meaning amateur trying to make a worn number clearer....or it can be the work of someone trying to hide the details of a stolen watch.

I would be mindful of the fact that many people cry that a Rolex case number has been "tampered with" merely because it is in a style that they have not seen before, but in truth Rolex applied a great number of different styles and one needs to know what to expect on which models and when. As I say, we need that macro shot.....

Haywood

[sentinel]

Thanks for the answer, Haywood. Will shoot macros as soon I get the watch back from the dealership. Some gaskets needed changing, should have it in a day or two.

The idea of it being a potential stolen watch did occur to me. Although it seems like someone was going to an awful lot of trouble given that the watch supposedly is from 87 regarding both serial number on case and the bracelet (which the AD identified) - and then having it matched with at given serial number on a stolen certificate? (because the two DO match). Anyhow, I DID check the serialnumber upon aquiring the watch three weeks back - but thought nothing of it (in regards to the typography of the lettering).

[configsys]

What exactly is the 'paperwork' you're requesting going to say besides the certificate which you already have? Does it override the certificate or have greater weight?

Several experienced folks have already validated the authenticity yet you're still searching for 1 person to say there is something fishy about it. I understand the concept of getting a second opinion but a 4th, 5th and 6th, really?

My opinion, you are without a doubt, paranoid.

[sentinel]

Yeah I think I just might be. :-) Nevertheless, I find that the subject is really interesting. Should probably go ahead and forget about my superstitions though.

The main cause is problably the fact that it's a birthday present for the wife - has to be perfect. ;)

[sentinel]

So, I owe you guys an update on this. Haywood was kind enough to advise me on what to do via email. Thank you for that.

Got the watch back from the AD about a month ago. And guess what? The serialnumber really HAD been re-engraved. Pictures attached. I did have the bracelet off the watch when I first got it but i havent seen a lot of serials like this, so thought nothing of it.

After some talk back and forth, and an offer for a substitute 16013 i demanded my money back. And got it, swiftly (thank god). And an apology to go with it ofcourse.

I hope you would agree that missing something like this and simultaneously claiming to have "rigorous standards of inspection and quality control" as a seller of pre-owned watches is simply unacceptable. I obviously cannot recommend this seller despite trusted seller status and trusted checkout avaliability on chrono24 (watchcenter dot co dot uk)

Instead I visited watchcentre.com in London this weekend and am awaiting a lovely 16233 with roman numeral dial 1987 by Fedex any day now.

Haywood, feel free to add any detail I may have missed in our email correspondance.

[jvmartin]

Not even a convincing re-engraving...

[Haywood_Milton]

I'm glad you escaped with your money from that one. All I would wish to add is a personal opinion, now there are two businesses with "unfortunately similar" names in the UK :

Watchcentre.com : been around for years and I would recommend
Watchcentre.co.uk : ......er......um.....let me just read this thread again.....