Hulk authenticity check

[YGRLX]

Just checking your thoughts on this with the pros on here. A friend send it to me, bezel looks sloppy but I don’t have a hulk to compare to.

[YGRLX]

Image attched

[SaddleSC]

Super blurry pic with very little detail, but it sure doesn't look like my Hulk :)

[YGRLX]

Sorry for the blurry pic. It’s what he sent to me.

[jaySL350]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

Super blurry pic with very little detail, but it sure doesn't look like my Hulk :)

+1,,,
Blurry pic as stated but looks a bit flat and dull,,,
Certainly not like mine but could be well worn ,,

[expy2]

Looking at the bracelet, I'd say fake.

[rmlovett1]

Not enough info from that one picture to verify authenticity. Would need several pics in HD, different angles, etc….

[chocopeluche]

Rehaut lettering looks misaligned

[YGRLX]

Updated pic

[Hemdog]

In the immortal words of Roy Walker “it’s good but it’s not right”

[dannyp]

Angle makes it a little tough, but I'd say fake, based on dial lettering misalignment. Looking at a Hulk on C24 (giving the benefit of the doubt that at least what's pictured there is legit), I notice:

Top two lines of text: The bottom of the "L" in "ROLEX" is directly above the "RPE" in "peRPEtual" and covers most of the "R," all of the "P" and almost none of the "E" there. On the real one, it barely covers any of the "R," covers all of the "P" and covers most of the "E."

Bottom four lines: The "=" should be centered in the space between "1000ft" and "300m" and on the one you've pictured, it isn't. It should also be directly above the "C" in "CHRONOMETER" and not above and to the left of it. There also shouldn't be space between "300" and "m" either.

FWIW, this is the listing I'm using for comparison purposes (though I know nothing about the dealer or specific watch featured): https://www.chrono24.com/rolex/rolex...id11951341.htm

[shoppy]

Here is a photo of mine.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by shoppy

Here is a photo of mine.

Well, that settles it: Either you bought your fake from the same source as the one I compared to on C24...

Or the OP's friend is looking at a fairly poor copy

And of course I'm assuming it's the latter

[noshame]

OP, based on the photo, my gut says replica. Based on:

1. bracelet has too much play where it attaches to bottom endlink
2. the hour markers are filled with too much chromalight (looks overfilled, too high, compared to my 116610LN and the photo of dannyp's Hulk)

Good luck.

[rambo99]

from the first picture, i would say 90% chance its fake.

[jaySL350]

OP,,
Has your friend purchased this watch believing it’s authentic?

[YGRLX]

Originally Posted by jaySL350

OP,,
Has your friend purchased this watch believing it’s authentic?

No he has not - it was offered on a trade for his black 16610. He sent me this picture and I (although an avid collector) don’t have the same eye as some on the forum. I compared with my cermit but the models are just too different.

Thank you for all l comments!

[Kostas]

the pearl pip says it all... garbage

[supernova]

Even with the crap photo, can still tell it’s a crap fake you have. Bye.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RolexSimon]

Fake - clarity of bezel numbers is not good. Probably the easiest way to spot a fake. Look at zeros at 20 30 and 40 - edges aren't crystal clear when compared to the original.

[Holishi]

Lug and bracelet are not flush like all rolex

[shaunylw]

My friends wear real watches


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Galion]

I have no need for a clearer picture, this is a POS fake

[garyk]

Basic cameras on phones take better shots than these. No offense to anyone but the whole thing seems fishy?

[BrazenC5]

100% fake. Multiple discrepancies on dial and bezel insert.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by RolexSimon

Fake - clarity of bezel numbers is not good. Probably the easiest way to spot a fake. Look at zeros at 20 30 and 40 - edges aren't crystal clear when compared to the original.

Font also too thin, which I'd not noticed before (or attributed to poor photo resolution).

[BOA]

I thought we weren't supposed to go into that much detail by listing all the faults in a fake, that we should just say it's fake and be done with it, or has that changed?

[SwissmadeTexan]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Angle makes it a little tough, but I'd say fake, based on dial lettering misalignment. Looking at a Hulk on C24 (giving the benefit of the doubt that at least what's pictured there is legit), I notice:

Top two lines of text: The bottom of the "L" in "ROLEX" is directly above the "RPE" in "peRPEtual" and covers most of the "R," all of the "P" and almost none of the "E" there. On the real one, it barely covers any of the "R," covers all of the "P" and covers most of the "E."

Bottom four lines: The "=" should be centered in the space between "1000ft" and "300m" and on the one you've pictured, it isn't. It should also be directly above the "C" in "CHRONOMETER" and not above and to the left of it. There also shouldn't be space between "300" and "m" either.

FWIW, this is the listing I'm using for comparison purposes (though I know nothing about the dealer or specific watch featured): https://www.chrono24.com/rolex/rolex...id11951341.htm

This is just wrong. The dial text and fonts vary on this model. The = is not always centered. The earlier models have varying font and spacing all across the dial. Same with where the words fall in Rolex and perpetual. My authentic 2012 Hulk looks similar to this dial. Double spacing and tiny font differences and letter alignments differ.

All that being said if all you can get is this one shitty picture I’d say it’s most definitely fake. Bezel looks off but could just be dirty, smudged, and poor camera focus, etc . No one can tell you for sure off one shitty blurry picture taken with a Motorola razr from 2003.