Submariner Flat Four 50th Anniversary

[Porter]

IMO you have an amazing watch and if you're completely sure the dial is 100% original then you have a VERY special one. I would not touch it and keep it.
Enjoy it with the best health!

"If you're not having fun you're doing something wrong". Groucho Marx.

[Trimmy]

Originally Posted by Porter

IMO you have an amazing watch and if you're completely sure the dial is 100% original then you have a VERY special one. I would not touch it and keep it.
Enjoy it with the best health!

"If you're not having fun you're doing something wrong". Groucho Marx.

Thank you

[KrismanX]

Authenticity aside, I'm pretty sure there would not be many other examples like yours out in the world. Keep it and enjoy the uniqueness, or scratch the OCD itch.

[EvEr34]

Sorry but I don't see anything special with a lopsided dial especially when the first thought that comes too mind is "fake". It just looks plain weird and surely does not make it more collectible. Just my 2c

[imperio]

Originally Posted by Trimmy

as l doubt there is another like it !

Correct on this point since they don't have too many manufacturing defects



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[faz]

Originally Posted by EvEr34

Sorry but I don't see anything special with a lopsided dial especially when the first thought that comes too mind is "fake". It just looks plain weird and surely does not make it more collectible. Just my 2c

I agree.

If Rolex can replace the dial with an original one of the same era (matching description provided by sensui), then I would ask them to do that.


Looking forward to hearing about the outcome.

[dcash0615]

Your dial has all the characteristics of a Mark 5 dial. However that dial should come with a pointed 4 bezel, not flat 4. Flat 4 bezels disappeared in late 2004 on the Mark 1 dials and then reappeared for a short period again on some late F serial through very early D serial watches with a Mark 3 dial. Mark 5 dials started to appear in the market in late 2005.

Would be curious the date of purchase of your watch in 2004 and what letter and first digit in the serial #.

It appears the hour markers were applied to the dial off centered. They are all shifted off center equally.

[sensui]

Originally Posted by dcash0615

Your dial has all the characteristics of a Mark 5 dial. However that dial should come with a pointed 4 bezel, not flat 4. Flat 4 bezels disappeared in late 2004 on the Mark 1 dials and then reappeared for a short period again on some late F serial through very early D serial watches with a Mark 3 dial. Mark 5 dials started to appear in the market in late 2005.

Would be curious the date of purchase of your watch in 2004 and what letter and first digit in the serial #.

It appears the hour markers were applied to the dial off centered. They are all shifted off center equally.

Hey Dave......I thought this @ first......but I'm not convinced because the placement of the R in "Oyster" does seem centered under the legs of the "R" in Rolex....which implies mk1-3 but obviously the O in "Rolex" is not oval either from the pic.....That along with the strange placement of the markers makes this a really weird dial......sure it's possible I guess it's authentic and just a misprint......but I'd be very suspicious......perhaps better pictures for inspection is needed.

[dcash0615]

The photo isn't really clear, but when I look it appears the the R in oyster is aligned with end of left foot of R in Rolex and not centered. I agree with you, something isn't right here as the round O with flat 4 bezel doesn't coincide with the chart and a Mark 5 dial didn't start to appear on these watches until early December 2005, a year after this one was purchased.

Originally Posted by sensui

Hey Dave......I thought this @ first......but I'm not convinced because the placement of the R in "Oyster" does seem centered under the legs of the "R" in Rolex....which implies mk1-3 but obviously the O in "Rolex" is not oval either from the pic.....That along with the strange placement of the markers makes this a really weird dial......sure it's possible I guess it's authentic and just a misprint......but I'd be very suspicious......perhaps better pictures for inspection is needed.

[sensui]

Originally Posted by dcash0615

The photo isn't really clear, but when I look it appears the the R in oyster is aligned with end of left foot of R in Rolex and not centered. I agree with you, something isn't right here as the round O with flat 4 bezel doesn't coincide with the chart and a Mark 5 dial didn't start to appear on these watches until early December 2005, a year after this one was purchased.

I think I see what you're seeing now after looking at it closer...could be more lined to the left left leg of the R making this a Mark 5....that would at least ease me a bit as the owner....just incorrect dial for the period claimed....who knows though, the data from vrf for 16610Lv like all vintage are just data points.....interesting to see where this leads...I'd be interested in closer pics of the dial and verifying the back of it if it was apart.

[Stevec14]

If it was mine, I'd ask RSC if it was possible to retro fit what is deemed to be the correct dial for the serial/date i.e. A mk1.

[Helmi]

Originally Posted by faz

I agree.



If Rolex can replace the dial with an original one of the same era (matching description provided by sensui), then I would ask them to do that.





Looking forward to hearing about the outcome.

Exactly. That would be fair and best solution IMHO

[DavidUK]

My wife watched a documentary recently in which camera retailers were unwittingly selling high end Nikon or Canon cameras to the public which turned out, unbeknownst to them, to be Chinese knock-offs. Now I don't know whether these were "authorised" retailers, but I'm sure that if you took your watch into any watch shop with a view to selling it they would hand it back to you saying "sorry, not interested" despite your protestations it's genuine.

Many actual fakes could be passed off as genuine ahead of your watch, and in the world of Rolex anything unusual, apart from dials with aged patina perhaps, is dropped like a hot potato. That's because there are hundreds of thousands of fake Rolexes known to be out there. Would I buy your watch for £50? No, because it's either a fake OR I'd be stuck with it forever, unable to sell it because everyone else, at first glance, will think the same.

You MUST get the AD to either admit they have sold you a fake or get them to fix it. I'd firstly take it to another AD or better still to a RSC and ask them to authenticate it. Then maybe find a way of dealing with Rolex direct, send them some photos, and see if they wish to "cover it up" by sorting it for you, if it hasn't been confiscated by then.

[Trimmy]

Hi
Below are some further images I have taken of the Submariner Flat 4 you commented on yesterday regarding the authenticity, the Rolex dealer from where purchased has offered for the watch to be sent back to Rolex for them to verify that this is an mk 1 original and not a fake as I believe it to be with the provenance around the watch.

[MBYSF]

Something is weird here...

[Emoney11]

that is definitely not an mk1

No oval O
"R" is not centered

To me it looks like someone took a LN and did a sloppy job in substituting parts to make a maxi dial and then added the green insert

[chuckblocker]

Damn, that dial looks horrible.

Nice botch job @ rolex QC if it ever left the factory like this

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by mbysf

something is weird here...

x2.

[Trimmy]

So if Rolex confirm after having the watch back that it is a original MK 1 with faulty dial and offer replacement, what would you do ?

[sensui]

With the upgraded pictures, definitely the R is lined up with the left leg of Rolex....it looks more like a botched mk5 dial.....something is definitely wrong and it's definitely nothing close to a mk1 or any of the earlier dials with an oval O in "Rolex."

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Trimmy

So if Rolex confirm after having the watch back that it is a original MK 1 with faulty dial and offer replacement, what would you do ?

Your decision but RSC will most likely install whatever dial they have in stock for the watch. It could be any variation and not necessarily a "Mark 1". You will get what you get.

[Trimmy]

Originally Posted by sensui

With the upgraded pictures, definitely the R is lined up with the left leg of Rolex....it looks more like a botched mk5 dial.....something is definitely wrong and it's definitely nothing close to a mk1 or any of the earlier dials with an oval O in "Rolex."

Hi

Thanks for your comments
The AD is returning the watch to Rolex for their verification of original with factory faults.

If this is confirmed by them what would you do. Replace if that is possible ?, or with letter of authenticity from Rolex keep as is ?

[Trimmy]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

Your decision but RSC will most likely install whatever dial they have in stock for the watch. It could be any variation and not necessarily a "Mark 1". You will get what you get.

I will get what l am offered if l accept.

[sensui]

Originally Posted by Trimmy

Hi

Thanks for your comments
The AD is returning the watch to Rolex for their verification of original with factory faults.

If this is confirmed by them what would you do. Replace if that is possible ?, or with letter of authenticity from Rolex keep as is ?

I'm not exactly sure....you have to think about this carefully....let's say you:

1) Get a letter of authenticity from Rolex (BTW I think this is highly unlikely with a dial botched like this, they would never certify this).....if you're keeping the watch and it makes you sleep well @ night...so be it....but I'd think buyers wouldn't be so easily convinced on a flaw like this if you want to sell....even with a letter from Rolex that can't be authenticated in any useful manner.

2) Get a changed dial....it's impossible they'd change the dial back to a rightful mk1 dial from 2003/2004....they just don't keep these dials around. It'd be a much later dial and possibly even a non-maxi service dial.

[dcash0615]

Rolex RSC does not make any distinctions between the different dial variations. They probably couldn't even tell you the difference between a Mark 1 or Mark 5 dial, nor do they probably even know about these dial variations. The RSC will require a dial replacement before returning the watch to you if it is determined to be authentic and a manufacturing error. You will get whatever dial is at he top of the parts bin. Most likely will be a Mark 7 or Mark 8 dial as these were the last ones being produced at the end of the LV run. Then you will have an F serial LV with a later dated maxi service dial.

[southcarolina1801]

Yeah everything about that dial is awful. I would have noticed that on day one.

[broker]

If you ask for a MK1 dial at RSC here in Brazil they will not even understand what you said, to RSC, they are all the same, MK1... MKX, there's just "the replacement dial to that model".

[Trimmy]

Originally Posted by sensui

I'm not exactly sure....you have to think about this carefully....let's say you:

1) Get a letter of authenticity from Rolex (BTW I think this is highly unlikely with a dial botched like this, they would never certify this).....if you're keeping the watch and it makes you sleep well @ night...so be it....but I'd think buyers wouldn't be so easily convinced on a flaw like this if you want to sell....even with a letter from Rolex that can't be authenticated in any useful manner.

2) Get a changed dial....it's impossible they'd change the dial back to a rightful mk1 dial from 2003/2004....they just don't keep these dials around. It'd be a much later dial and possibly even a non-maxi service dial.

Thanks for all your input, will just see how it plays out from here.

[Trimmy]

Originally Posted by southcarolina1801

Yeah everything about that dial is awful. I would have noticed that on day one.

Thanks, very informative !
I take your superior view of yourself with the smile it deserves.

[Masteryacht]

He could have said it in a nicer way than "awful", but there are lots of things about that dial that are off center of where they should be.