ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

USMCJS · 22 January 2018, 05:48 AM

I picked up a ladies Rolex (I hope) at an estate sale some years ago, gave it to my wife and it's been in a drawer since. Today, she was going through her watches and I asked to look at the "Rolex". When I picked it up and moved a bit, it started working. I changed the date and time and it's working great. The second hand is a sweep second hand not like a quartz movement watch. It has a tight screw down crown and the dial and crystal are perfect. I do not have the tools to get the back off. There are no markings on the back of the watch case but there are markings on the band clasp. I would appreciate opinions on whether it's real or not. Thanks.

GradyPhilpott · 22 January 2018, 07:03 AM

Junk.

That's my take, anyway.

Welcome aboard.

WatchWeb · 22 January 2018, 07:05 AM

JoeG74536 · 22 January 2018, 07:07 AM

Bogus, run away from that one.

Jason71 · 22 January 2018, 07:07 AM

With the ladies models, it’s always a bit harder to decide.........but my first hunch is authentic

GradyPhilpott · 22 January 2018, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason71

With the ladies models, it’s always a bit harder to decide.........but my first hunch is authentic

I was on the fence with this one, too, for the same reason, but I'm sticking with phony.

Kostas · 22 January 2018, 07:19 AM

Wrong section and rubbish

cdbeaver66 · 22 January 2018, 07:20 AM

That doesn't look good

AK797 · 22 January 2018, 07:25 AM

Wonky donkey.

And1dre · 22 January 2018, 07:35 AM

Bad...I'm no expert though.

NattyBumppo · 22 January 2018, 07:52 AM

The cyclops looks off

Kostas · 22 January 2018, 08:00 AM

101031-28 · 22 January 2018, 08:03 AM

I say fake.

abozz · 22 January 2018, 08:04 AM

A horrible fake.

Chalet · 22 January 2018, 08:05 AM

Fake. Look at the cyclops and numerals.

omx5o · 22 January 2018, 08:10 AM

My immediate thought was that it looked very wrong.

On closer inspection, just look at the magnification on the cyclops. Barely 1.5, let alone 2.5.

PRD · 22 January 2018, 08:10 AM

The fit and finish do not seem typical of Rolex's meticulous attention to detail....

Kostas · 22 January 2018, 08:14 AM

They must’ve have used a too wide a brush to paint the gold on the end links !

TG3N · 22 January 2018, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK797

Wonky donkey.

This about sums it up. Numerals all over the place and lacking in finesse.

Cyclops with non-existent magnification. Odd-looking Rolex crown logo.

Normally, I discourage the pointing-out of flaws which might provide helpful feedback to professional fakers, but this is such a dogs dinner that I don't think anyone casting doubt upon it is speaking out of turn. Sorry.

Etschell · 22 January 2018, 08:24 AM

its a real fake.

ink3027 · 22 January 2018, 08:25 AM

Fake, without a doubt.

Sunny Arizona · 22 January 2018, 10:14 AM

Fake

watchwatcher · 22 January 2018, 10:25 AM

That doesn't look right to me...however, as Jason said, the ladies models are harder to tell.

Shamorai · 22 January 2018, 10:59 AM

That was made by the cleaning lady.

Macnavara · 22 January 2018, 11:05 AM

Fake all day long...just look how wonky the 6 is

Tools · 22 January 2018, 11:37 AM

This watch is not an authentic Rolex.

The bracelet number, 62523, is the reference for a men's full-size watch as wall as many incorrect aspects elsewhere.

If it keeps good time and your wife likes it, it may serve well as an everyday piece, but don't expect a Rolex shop to repair anything.

Calatrava r · 22 January 2018, 12:03 PM

The cyclops looks wrong to me. Too much contrast on the date wheel.

worldfamoussam · 22 January 2018, 12:32 PM

It looked fake at first glimpse. But then thinking it through, if it's an older model, unless that's a service replacement dial (and a lot more than that would have happened at a service), it would say T Swiss T (as opposed to Swiss Made) because the lume in the hands would be tritium ... at least, I think ...

pilotjim · 22 January 2018, 12:56 PM

Date looks small

Greatwatch1 · 22 January 2018, 06:58 PM

have you really got to ask, look at that date aaahhhh

22 January 2018, 07:03 AM	#2
GradyPhilpott 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: 116710 BLNR Posts: 34,351	Junk. That's my take, anyway. Welcome aboard. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

22 January 2018, 07:05 AM	#3
WatchWeb "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Real Name: John Location: UK Watch: GMT2C, Sub LVC Posts: 798	__________________ GMT2 Ceramic 2012. 2015 ”Hulk” Submariner. 2015 white dial 116520.

22 January 2018, 07:07 AM	#5
Jason71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Jason Location: USA Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers Posts: 7,973	With the ladies models, it’s always a bit harder to decide.........but my first hunch is authentic __________________ Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY

22 January 2018, 07:20 AM	#8
cdbeaver66 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Surrey/W.SussexUK Posts: 1,340	That doesn't look good __________________ 1. Breitling Colt Chronograph 2. Melbourne Watch Company Portsea 3. Tudor Black Bay ETA Blue 4.Rolex GMT Master IIc LN 5. Tudor Heritage Ranger 6. Tudor Pelagos LHD 7. Tudor Black Bay Bronze Bucherer Blue Edition 8. Tudor Black Bay GMT 9. Tudor Black Bay Harrods Instagram: mykicksandticks

22 January 2018, 08:03 AM	#13
101031-28 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: USA Watch: 1665 Posts: 4,747	I say fake. __________________ He could not just wear a watch. It had to be a Rolex. Ian Fleming

22 January 2018, 07:07 AM	#4
JoeG74536 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: North Carolina Posts: 181	Bogus, run away from that one.

22 January 2018, 07:19 AM	#7
Kostas 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Australia Watch: @ kostastimepieces Posts: 5,243	Wrong section and rubbish

22 January 2018, 07:25 AM	#9
AK797 Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Neil Location: UK Watch: ing ships roll in Posts: 59,278	Wonky donkey.

22 January 2018, 07:35 AM	#10
And1dre "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: Silicon Valley Watch: Rolex Posts: 4,182	Bad...I'm no expert though.

22 January 2018, 07:52 AM	#11
NattyBumppo "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Real Name: Charles Location: Baltimore Watch: Omega Seamaster Posts: 77	The cyclops looks off

22 January 2018, 08:00 AM	#12
Kostas 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Australia Watch: @ kostastimepieces Posts: 5,243

22 January 2018, 08:04 AM	#14
abozz "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: In my home. Watch: 116660, 126600 Posts: 2,905	A horrible fake.

22 January 2018, 08:05 AM	#15
Chalet "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Uk Watch: 13x Rolex Addict Posts: 324	Fake. Look at the cyclops and numerals.

22 January 2018, 08:10 AM	#16
omx5o "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Real Name: Richard Location: UK Watch: Milgauss GV Posts: 1,611	My immediate thought was that it looked very wrong. On closer inspection, just look at the magnification on the cyclops. Barely 1.5, let alone 2.5.

22 January 2018, 08:10 AM	#17
PRD "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Santa Barbara CA Posts: 36	The fit and finish do not seem typical of Rolex's meticulous attention to detail....

22 January 2018, 08:14 AM	#18
Kostas 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Australia Watch: @ kostastimepieces Posts: 5,243	They must’ve have used a too wide a brush to paint the gold on the end links !

22 January 2018, 08:24 AM	#20
Etschell "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: FL Watch: platinum sub Posts: 15,884	its a real fake. __________________ If you wind it, they will run. 25 or 6 to 4.

22 January 2018, 08:25 AM	#21
ink3027 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: Texas Posts: 715	Fake, without a doubt.

22 January 2018, 10:14 AM	#22
Sunny Arizona "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Brad Location: Colorado Watch: 16613 Posts: 1,255	Fake

22 January 2018, 10:25 AM	#23
watchwatcher "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Larry Location: Kentucky Watch: Yes Posts: 34,511	That doesn't look right to me...however, as Jason said, the ladies models are harder to tell.

22 January 2018, 10:59 AM	#24
Shamorai "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Sydney Watch: 16523, 116610LV Posts: 762	That was made by the cleaning lady.

22 January 2018, 11:05 AM	#25
Macnavara "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,348	Fake all day long...just look how wonky the 6 is

22 January 2018, 11:37 AM	#26
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,090	This watch is not an authentic Rolex. The bracelet number, 62523, is the reference for a men's full-size watch as wall as many incorrect aspects elsewhere. If it keeps good time and your wife likes it, it may serve well as an everyday piece, but don't expect a Rolex shop to repair anything. __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

22 January 2018, 12:03 PM	#27
Calatrava r 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: United States Watch: Rolex and Patek Posts: 10,655	The cyclops looks wrong to me. Too much contrast on the date wheel.

22 January 2018, 12:32 PM	#28
worldfamoussam "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2017 Location: USA Watch: Day Date II Posts: 481	It looked fake at first glimpse. But then thinking it through, if it's an older model, unless that's a service replacement dial (and a lot more than that would have happened at a service), it would say T Swiss T (as opposed to Swiss Made) because the lume in the hands would be tritium ... at least, I think ... __________________ Day-Date II 218238 Ballon Bleu Rose Gold 2999

22 January 2018, 12:56 PM	#29
pilotjim "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2017 Real Name: Jim Location: Mass Watch: BLNR Posts: 439	Date looks small

22 January 2018, 06:58 PM	#30
Greatwatch1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Uk Posts: 11	have you really got to ask, look at that date aaahhhh

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)