Concerned about Rolex Submariner counterfeit

[Lange911]

Hello Rolex Forums members, this will be my first post so hoping it doesn't break any rules.

Have a friend who was gifted this Rolex Submariner from a family member. Although it appears to me that it is not a genuine Sub.

I have attached the only picture available. Would like someone to chime in for a second opinion. The biggest giveaway for me is the cyclops and the missing rehaut engraving amongst other flaws.

Thank you!

[Tridor]

Sorry, but it looks like a fake to me.

[H_tony11]

Sorry but it is a fake

[HogwldFLTR]

Rolex phased in engraved rehaut over the period of a number of years in the early 2000s There have been plenty of Rolex incorrect magnification. Crystal replaced with after market cone could also explain the cyclops mag issues. I wouldn't count on any decision made based on the single photo. Shipping it to Rolex for quote on a service would give the most reliable answer.

[Lange911]

Hello yes I figured there may have been an incorrect replacement of the crystal which would explain the cyclops magnification being non existant l, but maybe there are other less obvious flaws like the SELs, or hand stack placement etc.

[Tridor]

The magnification is off, yes, but the real tell is elsewhere ... hint, it's on the dial.

[Lange911]

I looked but I'm not sure

[tamiya]

Originally Posted by Lange911

I looked but I'm not sure

*if* it was yours to authenticate, I'd simply pop the back open to revel it's true glory.

[Duey]

Originally Posted by Lange911

flaws like the SELs, or hand stack placement etc.

It's a through hole case without an SEL bracelet and the pearl is cracked

flip it over and take more pictures

and it doesn't look fake to me ...

you can even see the chamfers

[Andad]

Pass.

[neurotichamster8]

Originally Posted by Duey

It's a through hole case without an SEL bracelet and the pearl is cracked

flip it over and take more pictures

and it doesn't look fake to me ...

you can even see the chamfers

delete

[Al1969]

Guess your friend's family don't like him much.

[Mangas]

Nailed on Fake . Mag is awful :(

[epc2]

Bad Mag and I think the pearl looks too big.

[rozyd]

Originally Posted by Tridor

The magnification is off, yes, but the real tell is elsewhere ... hint, it's on the dial.

So many eyeballs. Agreed closer scrutiny of the dial tells all.

[mdubya]

Surprised how many are quick to call fake on this one. Clearly a mag issue but the rest of the watch looks ok to my eye - case, etc. Holes case with a hollow bracelet are not a big target of counterfeiters.

Crystal probably aftermarket due to the mag, bezel may be as well as the lume pip looks a bit off.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by H_tony11

Sorry but it is a fake

Care to expand why?
I do not think you can tell from that photo.

Rehaut tells you nothing, as we do not know the date of the watch - Looks like it does have lug holes?
Cyclops, may not be X2.5 - but that does not always prove fake.
Pearl dot does look too big, and 'cracked' - could be aftermarket bezel?

I can see NO glaring fake red flags
Adam

[cht]

Looks gen with aftermarket/improperly installed crystal with poor mag, otherwise, everything else looks gen to me.

Not sure what you guys are hallucinating about on the dial.

[kauffee]

Originally Posted by cht

Looks gen with aftermarket/improperly installed crystal with poor mag, otherwise, everything else looks gen to me.

Not sure what you guys are hallucinating about on the dial.

I'm no spotting fakes expert, but the 'o' in Rolex looks wrong to me.

[Tridor]

Suffice it to say that, IMHO, it is a fake. I advise against going into detail because that only assists scammers who may be viewing this thread in their quest to correct problems in their replicas. For a determination of authenticity, I suggest that the OP take the watch to a RSC, a Rolex AD, or a Rolex-trained watchmaker.

[Mnicolini300]

Looks like a MK1 swiss made dial. 5 ticks under Swiss and oval O which is common on the K,Y, early F, perhaps this is a P serial? I don't see a fake here. I see a watch that's got a terrible crystal on it. Insert looks fine. Flat 4 is consistent with early subs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zanotti]

Careful

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Rolex phased in engraved rehaut over the period of a number of years in the early 2000s There have been plenty of Rolex incorrect magnification. Crystal replaced with after market cone could also explain the cyclops mag issues. I wouldn't count on any decision made based on the single photo. Shipping it to Rolex for quote on a service would give the most reliable answer.

Doesn't Rolex confiscate fakes?

[breitlings]

how does it set the time: CC/Clockwise to advance?

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

Doesn't Rolex confiscate fakes?

No they do not.
Thats a myth
a

[aayates]

I'm not an expert but the crown doesn't look correctly centered within the protectors.

[PRSWILL]

Originally Posted by Zanotti

Careful

you have 12 posts... not and expert. I don't think this is a fake either- it looks like a bad crystal/bezel replacement. yeah I have 21 posts so I'm not an expert either. But i'd be "careful" not to judge too quickly off one pic.

[socalwatchcollector]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

No they do not.
Thats a myth
a

Wouldn't you want them to take it and destroy it?

[tamiya]

Originally Posted by socalwatchcollector

Wouldn't you want them to take it and destroy it?

On what grounds?
Possession ain't criminal & trademark infringements is a civil issue.

What if your neighbour thinks your house is worst on the street, its bringing the whole suburb's values down & she alone can demand it demolished?

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by socalwatchcollector

Wouldn't you want them to take it and destroy it?

I posted what they do, thats the facts.
What I may or may not "want" has nothing to do with it