Something is off, but I can't put my finger on it.

[j_a]

I'm not sure why, but something about this watch isn't quite right. It might be the gap between the bracelet and the case below 7 o'clock, other than that I can't see anything else wrong with it. Any suggestions on how I could try and confirm its authenticity? I asked for a photo of the serial number, and reference number, just waiting to hear back.

ref. 1002, year 1965, cal. 1560

[Kingface66]

No photo

[j_a]

I forgot the photo. As I was posting they replied, saying "We cannot send a pic before paid".

[j_a]

Here are some more photos.

[Andad]

I’m confused.

You already had a pix?
They sent a pix before payment?
You paid and then they sent a pix?

In any event it depends on the price.
The seller seems to be difficult to deal with?

Watch looks ok.
Bracelet looks very loose.
I think there are better ones out there.

[j_a]

They are now saying its a 1.7 mill serial number, which would be 1967-1968.

[j_a]

Originally Posted by Andad

I’m confused.

You already had a pix?
They sent a pix before payment?
You paid and then they sent a pix?

In any event it depends on the price.
The seller seems to be difficult to deal with?

Looks ok.
Bracelet looks loose.

I asked for photos of the reference number and serial number, because they hadn't provided them.

[baumare]

There should be tritium somewhere on the dial or the hands, I don’t see any...

Anyway personally I don’t like the fact that they told you to pay first to see the serial number, doesn’t work like that, is a reasonable request

[j_a]

Originally Posted by baumare

There should be tritium somewhere on the dial or the hands, I don’t see any...

Anyway personally I don’t like the fact that they told you to pay first to see the serial number, doesn’t work like that, is a reasonable request

That's it, it's a no-lume! Thank you. I'm not sure how I missed that. Now I just need to find out if it is indeed a legitimate no-lume.

To your second point, I agree. I'm already starting to doubt its authenticity, based off the interactions I've had the the dealer. Reading their reviews, it sounds like they are sending watches with papers that don't match.

[rootbeer7]

There are legitimate no-lume pieces out there with t swiss t marked dials, I had a 1601. In one image it looks like they’ve been removed, perhaps when the dial was ‘restored’. If you’re not comfortable with the dealer, walk away. If dial original, it’s quite a charming watch.

[Dan S]

Looks fine to me.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by j_a

They are now saying its a 1.7 mill serial number, which would be 1967-1968.

Little late for dauphine hands, no?

[Goochy]

Originally Posted by j_a

I forgot the photo. As I was posting they replied, saying "We cannot send a pic before paid".

This is a big red flag for me.

[Slimpee]

Originally Posted by Goochy

This is a big red flag for me.

Agreed. It’s absurd. No way I’d move forward with a seller who did this unless I didn’t care about possibly getting burned.

[baumare]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Looks fine to me.

Hi, so if there is T-SWIS-T on the dial and there is no tritium on the marker and the dauphine hands, is ok?
Do you think that originally have the tritium dot on the marker that have been removed?
I'm just trying to understand if could have been like this originally...

[j_a]

Update: They eventually sent me photo's of the serial and ref. I think they might have thought I wasn't a serious buyer at the beginning. From what I can see, everything looks authentic. If you notice anything please let me know. I ordered the watch, with about a confidence level of 90%. I intend to bring it to a Rolex dealer to see what they think of it. I'll attach a few more images after this.

PS: I know the the "O" in Rolex looks smudged, I believe this is on the crystal. I've included another photo of the dial at an earlier date, that doesn't have the smudge on the "O".

[j_a]

Here are some more photos.

[swish77]

I think this watch might have a replaced dial and/or hands. I've never seen dauphine hands on a serial number this late. (And paperwork from 1965 on a 1.7 million serial is slightly out of whack too.) You also usually see dauphine hands matched to a different style of dial. Often the hour markers are the door-stop type, the ones that are slightly angled.

The watch might be fine, I suppose, but I would scour the Internet to try to find another example that matches, roughly, this dial and hands set-up from this era/serial number range. I think you'd have trouble finding another one of the thousands of examples you'll see online. Maybe, though.

[j_a]

Originally Posted by swish77

I think this watch might have a replaced dial and/or hands. I've never seen dauphine hands on a serial number this late. (And paperwork from 1965 on a 1.7 million serial is slightly out of whack too.) You also usually see dauphine hands matched to a different style of dial. Often the hour markers are the door-stop type, the ones that are slightly angled.

The watch might be fine, I suppose, but I would scour the Internet to try to find another example that matches, roughly, this dial and hands set-up from this era/serial number range.

The serial is 1.04 mill, you can see it in the second last batch I posted. I agree though, if it was 1.7 with 65 papers, that’s fishy. The band looks like it has 64 engraved on it as well, that gives me a bit more confidence.

[Nick9]

Thing is, in those days and right up to the 1980s, Rolex dealers would install or swap dials as a customer preferred. And change them again if a customer wanted a “new look”.

When I buy watches from this period, I aim for “original” but that’s often very difficult, so I end up at “authentic, possibly original” or “period correct”. I tend to judge on whether the watch has an attractive combination of dial, hands, bezel etc, roughly the right age.

That one looks authentic enough. Box and papers a bonus if they match.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by j_a

They are now saying its a 1.7 mill serial number, which would be 1967-1968.

Originally Posted by j_a

The serial is 1.04 mill, you can see it in the second last batch I posted. I agree though, if it was 1.7 with 65 papers, that’s fishy. The band looks like it has 64 engraved on it as well, that gives me a bit more confidence.

So, earlier the seller said it was a 1.7 million serial and now they say it's a 1.04? Big difference. The latter would make more sense, putting the watch closer to 1964.

[baumare]

Sorry, I don't wanna be the Sherlock Homes of the situation, but on first photo I see the serial start with a 5....
I'm I wrong?

Screen Shot 2021-02-21 at 6.50.11 PM.jpg

[j_a]

Originally Posted by baumare

Sorry, I don't wanna be the Sherlock Homes of the situation, but on first photo I see the serial start with a 5....
I'm I wrong?

Attachment 1203786

That is a 5. There is also a 10 above it for some reason. Not a good sign. It’s dated 65 at least. Well I guess I wait and see what I get in the mail. It’s through C24, if I need to I’ll make a claim. I might have got a bit excited and jumped the gun. Who knows, maybe the papers aren’t authentic, but the watch is.

[j_a]

Originally Posted by swish77

So, earlier the seller said it was a 1.7 million serial and now they say it's a 1.04? Big difference. The latter would make more sense, putting the watch closer to 1964.

Yeah, I’m not sure why they said 1.7, the photo shows 104. Possible typo I guess. That did take my confidence down a bit. I’m curious, is it common for people to bring their vintage watch to Rolex to see if it’s authentic? If so I would like to do that, for peace of mind.

[j_a]

Originally Posted by Nick9

Thing is, in those days and right up to the 1980s, Rolex dealers would install or swap dials as a customer preferred. And change them again if a customer wanted a “new look”.

When I buy watches from this period, I aim for “original” but that’s often very difficult, so I end up at “authentic, possibly original” or “period correct”. I tend to judge on whether the watch has an attractive combination of dial, hands, bezel etc, roughly the right age.

That one looks authentic enough. Box and papers a bonus if they match.

I’m ok with owning “authentic, possibly original.” That’s exactly how I felt about this watch. I couldn’t see anything really wrong with it, besides the no-lume dial. But from what I found online, Rolex made some watches without lume from time to time. There were a couple examples of no-lume sold on hodinkee. As for the box and papers, I’m hopeful they are real :)

[baumare]

The 10 on the warranty could be the reference 1002.

I wouldn't go to a Rolex dealer, many of them are not familiar with vintage watches, may be you can find an expert watchmaker near you to open it an take a look.
Also the best expert are actually in this Forum, when you receive the watch take photos of everything and I am sure someone will help you

[j_a]

Originally Posted by baumare

The 10 on the warranty could be the reference 1002.

I wouldn't go to a Rolex dealer, many of them are not familiar with vintage watches, may be you can find an expert watchmaker near you to open it an take a look.
Also the best expert are actually in this Forum, when you receive the watch take photos of everything and I am sure someone will help you

That makes sense, it's not really required knowledge for selling a modern Rolex. I'll search for a watchmaker near me. If I can't find one, I'll buy the Rolex tool and take some photos. Thanks for the advice.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by j_a

Yeah, I’m not sure why they said 1.7, the photo shows 104. Possible typo I guess. That did take my confidence down a bit. I’m curious, is it common for people to bring their vintage watch to Rolex to see if it’s authentic? If so I would like to do that, for peace of mind.

Based on what we are seeing I don't think you have to worry about it being fake. Whether every single part is original is harder to say. But a Rolex dealer wouldn't be able to tell you that either.

[j_a]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Based on what we are seeing I don't think you have to worry about it being fake. Whether every single part is original is harder to say. But a Rolex dealer wouldn't be able to tell you that either.

Thank you Dan, I think so as well. If some part is an authentic replacement, I'll be ok.

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by baumare

There should be tritium somewhere on the dial or the hands, I don’t see any...

Anyway personally I don’t like the fact that they told you to pay first to see the serial number, doesn’t work like that, is a reasonable request

Why?

All dials have tritium designation in that era whether they got lume added or not.