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.

[j_a]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[R.W.T.]

Bottom line. That guarantee paper is MERELY an addition to me.

WHAT DOES THE CHRONOMETER CERTIFICATE SAY is the serial number of the watch and what is the date?

The movement number will ALSO be on there and it should match the one IN THE WATCH. The other paper is dealer paraphernalia.

I have NO problem with NON LUME Dauphine hands in 1965. With a package this complete...hang tag...box...papers BOTH guarantee and timing cert...if it all matches...nobody has likely cobbled ALL Of that together. it's very easy...if you open the case, the case back will have a 1/4 and a year. That combined with the date on the timing certificate...(which applies to when the MOVEMENT was certified ONLY as they were submitted OUT of the cases in batches) should give a close indicator. Most often factory supplied bracelets will date 1 - 2 months later than the watch production. Vis IV-64 case will often get a 1, 2, 0r 3 65 band.

[j_a]

Originally Posted by R.W.T.

Bottom line. That guarantee paper is MERELY an addition to me.

WHAT DOES THE CHRONOMETER CERTIFICATE SAY is the serial number of the watch and what is the date?

The movement number will ALSO be on there and it should match the one IN THE WATCH. The other paper is dealer paraphernalia.

I have NO problem with NON LUME Dauphine hands in 1965. With a package this complete...hang tag...box...papers BOTH guarantee and timing cert...if it all matches...nobody has likely cobbled ALL Of that together. it's very easy...if you open the case, the case back will have a 1/4 and a year. That combined with the date on the timing certificate...(which applies to when the MOVEMENT was certified ONLY as they were submitted OUT of the cases in batches) should give a close indicator. Most often factory supplied bracelets will date 1 - 2 months later than the watch production. Vis IV-64 case will often get a 1, 2, 0r 3 65 band.

Thank you, this is great. Once I get my hands on the watch, I'll look at the papers and open up the watch. I'll probably make another thread with photos. I am quite new to this, and would hate to miss an obvious red flag. I'm glad you see nothing wrong with it at the moment. That is a relief. I appreciate you taking the time to reply.