ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
1 October 2018, 12:40 PM | #1 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
1969 Rolex Submariner 1680 Red 'Tiffany & CO.'
Hi lads, what are your thoughts on this 1969 Rolex Submariner 1680 Red 'Tiffany & CO'
I am pretty sure the Tiffany branding has been added later as they font for the O in CO is uppercase, they are usually lower case correct? It sort of makes me question the whole piece, dial and all. What do you all think? |
1 October 2018, 02:02 PM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
|
1 October 2018, 02:51 PM | #3 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
This is the only example of a Tiffany and Co. dial with a font that matches my watch. It was on this site:
https://www.theversatilegent.com/rol...ey-are-common/ It is identical, including the very unique looking ampersand. |
1 October 2018, 03:31 PM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
|
Hey mate,
I asked about this a few weeks ago if you're interested. https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=627979 |
1 October 2018, 03:48 PM | #5 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
Yes but its strange someone would use such an obscure font to fake a dial?
|
1 October 2018, 04:38 PM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 6,006
|
the dial is not OK, forget it. The fake Tiffany logo has been printed on a fake Rolex dial. Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
1 October 2018, 06:24 PM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
Thanks David, I value your opinion
|
2 October 2018, 02:22 AM | #8 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,405
|
yes that does does not look correct
|
2 October 2018, 02:26 AM | #9 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 8,391
|
Dial is complete fake. Also, Tiffany font is not correct.
|
2 October 2018, 03:45 AM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: 'murica
Watch: yer six.
Posts: 576
|
Hey guys, for my own education, how can you tell that the 1680 dial itself is fake? Compare to other Mk.V dials, I'm not seeing any glaring problems.
|
2 October 2018, 06:16 AM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Real Name: Jim
Location: Connecticut
Watch: this! Hold my beer
Posts: 2,811
|
Well, a Mk V dial has no business on a 1969 watch for one thing...
It's hard to confirm in these photos, but the hands to not appear to be genuine either. |
2 October 2018, 06:38 AM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: 'murica
Watch: yer six.
Posts: 576
|
Yeah the mismatch dates for sure. I agree the hands look very suspect...the metal outline is much thinner on other samples I've seen (as well as my own). I just didn't know if there was some "tell" on the dial (besides the Tiffany & Co.) that would mark it as a completely fake dial or if it's a genuine Mk.IV dial with some added print.
|
2 October 2018, 07:41 AM | #13 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
The last point was my dilemma, if it was a touched up but original dial, I might have bought it, but asked for a price reduction. However there is just something off about this piece.
|
2 October 2018, 04:27 PM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: 'murica
Watch: yer six.
Posts: 576
|
Ah I think I found the issues. A few of them actually now I closely compared it to at least one known Mk. V dial. If you guys can remember and pick up on the errors I found, good on you....I can barely remember what ate for lunch yesterday.
|
12 October 2018, 06:04 PM | #15 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
Apart from the dial and hands, the rest of the watch looks ok. If the price was right, its not a bad problem to have right?
|
13 October 2018, 02:02 AM | #16 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: Tony
Location: UK
Watch: AP, Rolex, JLC...
Posts: 631
|
A decent red sub dial sets you back usd 8/10k so the price must be extremely good.
__________________
Kind Regards, Tony. |
13 October 2018, 09:19 AM | #17 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
8.5usd
|
13 October 2018, 09:44 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Per
Location: Sweden
Watch: Gilt Rolex
Posts: 2,946
|
Doesn’t make any sense at all buying that. First it was described as authentic and later sold cheap as is? Would never consider doing business with such a seller.
Looking at the rest the insert might be a chemically faded service insert at best. Bezel itself look like a new replacement. Case is very tired and the bracelet is a much later solid one. We don’t even know if the case and movement is authentic. Even if they are this is not even close to a good start. Why would you want this? As a project? As parts?
__________________
Instagram: @perj123 |
13 October 2018, 10:08 AM | #19 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
Definitely as a project. I also intend to wear this, so I wouldnt care if it wasnt perfect.
What if I simply took it to a RSC? |
13 October 2018, 10:10 AM | #20 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: jP
Location: Texas
Watch: GMT-MASTER
Posts: 17,157
|
Fake...how about those Explorer hands? They are real "dandy" too. Sand hands.
__________________
Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics. |
13 October 2018, 10:33 AM | #21 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
ok, so going back a step. Is this piece salvageable at all? You guys are very quick to say 'move on' however where I come from these are THIN on the ground.
Apart from picking apart what is obviously fake, what about the case and movement? If I bought I would be selling off that 1983 Oyster. |
13 October 2018, 01:19 PM | #22 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,002
|
Dude let it goooooooooo
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
13 October 2018, 01:58 PM | #23 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
So, this is the sum of all of you knowledge and supposed experience?
|
13 October 2018, 02:23 PM | #24 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Piedmont, CA
Watch: various vintage
Posts: 2,272
|
If your goal is to get a project that will eventually yield you a period correct timepiece in every way, then you're going to end up spending more than what the current retail is of an average condition (but correct) meters first red Submariner. And that's assuming the case and internals of this specimen are truly authentic Rolex.
I'm not sold on the date engravings on the caseback, specifically the Roman numerals that represent what quarter the caseback was engraved. It seems too far apart to be a II (i.e. second quarter of 1969), and too close together if it were to be a III.
__________________
1680 MK II 2.2M (my daily); 1655 MK IV 8.1M (my 1st vintage); 16660 x 4 - 8.0M spider & matte 7.4M, 8.0M, 8.0M; 16610LV F MK I/MK I; 116528 Z; 14060 M COSC; Tudor 75090 Gone.....never forgotten: 14000 F, 14060 V COSC, PAM 048, 16623 F, 1680 MK V 3.1M, 16800 matte 8.3M & 1655 MK IV 7.4M |
13 October 2018, 02:33 PM | #25 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
Hi, thanks for the constructive reply fusion, thats pretty much what I was after so cheers.
|
14 October 2018, 11:37 PM | #27 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: Tony
Location: UK
Watch: AP, Rolex, JLC...
Posts: 631
|
Classy reply to people giving you free and voluntary advice...
__________________
Kind Regards, Tony. |
15 October 2018, 01:52 AM | #28 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The Empire State
Watch: 1966 Rolex 5513
Posts: 3,407
|
|
15 October 2018, 04:56 AM | #29 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 6,006
|
|
15 October 2018, 07:20 AM | #30 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 162
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.