16610ln Is this watch fake？

[moja]

Lemrich dial plate?

Please take a look..




从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk

[Randy9999]

The "STATNLESS STEEL" designation, terribly drawn letters that spell "ROLEX," and the very incorrect caramel-colored dial markers (among other things) tell the tale — not genuine.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by Randy9999

The "STATNLESS STEEL" designation, terribly drawn letters that spell "ROLEX," and the very incorrect caramel-colored dial markers (among other things) tell the tale — not genuine.

????

[moja]

T<25


从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk

[Randy9999]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

????

On second thought, it doesn't say "STATNLESS." But there's a lot wrong with this one regardless. :)

[Glosstritium]

looks good to me no worries

[Gmt21]

Originally Posted by Randy9999

The "STATNLESS STEEL" designation, terribly drawn letters that spell "ROLEX," and the very incorrect caramel-colored dial markers (among other things) tell the tale — not genuine.

Just a comment on the dial marker color. Patina color of this shade from a tritium era dial does not indicate that the dial is incorrect.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Randy9999

On second thought, it doesn't say "STATNLESS." But there's a lot wrong with this one regardless. :)

You are right - many things wrong.

Originally Posted by Glosstritium

looks good to me no worries

Sorry that is incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[RobW]

How about some clarification, please.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[athom]

awful text

[Stebinners]

Its real


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mcbain]

Looks real to me

[Vetracer]

Counterfeit.

[Randy9999]

Let’s just look at a glaring issue — the word “ROLEX.” Here’s how it appears in the watch posted here:


Notice the blocky/squarish interior of the R. Rolex would never mistreat their nameplate this way. Similarly, look at how the upper-interior of the O is markedly larger than the lower-interior as well as how the right and left sides aren’t symmetrical. Now look at the base of the L, no narration needed here.

Compare that with a genuine example:

screenshot 2019-06-09 at 5.45.39 pm.jpg
( source: https://www.chrono24.com/rolex/subma...-id7450927.htm )

[Randy9999]

(continued)

Now, for the benefit of the doubt, let’s say that perhaps this is a genuine watch with a poorly refinished dial. In that case we’ll need to examine something that would NEVER be refinished — like, for example, the tiny engraving between the lugs. Here’s the way “ORIG ROLEX DESIGN” appears here, again focusing on the central word:
IMG_0905.jpg

In this case there’s a lot wrong, but let’s call out just two obvious tells:

1) The O in ROLEX is spectacularly irregular.

2) You can see artifacts of unskilled engraving. Note the top-right of the R where the glint of metal (that would tear a test piece of onion-skin paper) catches the light. Same with the inner-left side of the O.

Compare this with a genuine example whose unmistakable consistency across every letter shines:
IMG_0904.jpg
(source page: http://www.drsd.com/more-info/regist...n-vs-orig.html )
(source image: http://www.drsd.com/_Media/d2x3162_med_hr.jpeg )

[Randy9999]

(continued)

Back to the dial. Note how the crown on a genuine 16610LN dial is perfection — even across the top, even indented “teeth” across the bottom, perfect spacing between the crown “jewels” above:
16610ln.jpg
(source image: https://www.markworthingtonjewellers...old-stock.html )

Compare with the watch posted here:
16610ln_incorrect.jpg

[Toronto Soup King]

If that's real that's the worst "ROLEX" print I've seen on a genuine dial. I'm surprised to read the comments saying it's clearly genuine...guys, just compare that print job to your own watches, look at that "R"!!!

[SunTzu]

The word "ROLEX" is hellacious.

[patrolmi]

oh my gosh, the S in "Submariner" looks like a backwards Z it's so flat!! Unless it's distortion of the photo.

[PRSWILL]

Doesn't the markings on the inside of the case look too "new" for this vintage? also not sure about that movement being period correct... definitely suspect.

[antrolexsub]

Watch is fine. Engravings are correct.

Dial font is nothing more than a worn plate from the pad printer.

[GLADIATOR]

Movement Genuine, Dial Genuine.
I think the hands are newer replacement.

Case is mighty interesting, seems very poor print compared to more modern Rolex's, but inside case perfect.
And serial number (L) dates to 1998-1990 and bracelet I think is O5 or April 1990

So all ties up

My verdict - is genuine BUT after market/replacement hands?

I have seen a lot of older pieces with poor engraving between lugs
Adam

[moja]

The two views upstairs are the same as those of the people in my area who have recognized Rolex as more professional. The disk seems to be one of the factories named lemrich. Thank you for your positive comments.



从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk