Explorer 1 2004 authenticity check

[X5x4x3]

New member here.

I’ve came across this explorer 1 recently and can’t figure out if it’s authentic or not, according to the serial code it’s a 2004 example. Never really looked at Explorer 1s properly before so I do not have much confidence in my own judgment.

Any thoughts/comments?

Thanks in advance

[Tools]

I don't see anything that leaps out at me.

Is there reason for you to suspect otherwise?

[MSL]

I thought that the Rolex rehaut came out in 2008,I stand to be corrected.

[dustin.owens]

What is the first part of the SN? The dial is 2010 - 2015 MK1 214270, which would match a case that has rehaut engravings. Only the very late 114270 had rehaut engravings, so 2004 doesn't make any sense.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Chewbacca]

I don’t like it.

But you know, nobody ever says what the price is. That’s the easiest most validating ‘tell’ and nobody ever says what the seller wants or what they paid.

It’s amazing really and it would answer the question.

[Old Expat Beast]

Doesn't look right to me at a glance. Especially the shape of the hands. Looks like a MKI dial 212470 copy.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Doesn't look right to me at a glance. Especially the shape of the hands. Looks like a MKI dial 212470 copy.

You got it. And some other pimples too.

[ts3]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

I don’t like it.

But you know, nobody ever says what the price is. That’s the easiest most validating ‘tell’ and nobody ever says what the seller wants or what they paid.

It’s amazing really and it would answer the question.

It is not that easy. Sure, chances that a watch is fake are high if it was dirt cheap. But your argument doesn't work the other way around. Lots of people who paid up also have second thoughts if a watch is the real deal.

[StillTrying]

So much look off with this. The dial print, the 3,6,9 numerals, the hands, the engraved rehaut. I am no expert but on a two second glance looks obviously off.
Stay away.

[X5x4x3]

It’s a F serial

[X5x4x3]

Chewbacca - I haven’t bought this nor it has a price

[X5x4x3]

I agree it looks off but I since I never really looked at Explorers previously and having bought all my other pieces through ADs I needed a second opinion. If the ROLEXROLEX rehaut on explorer 1s didn’t come in until later than 2004/2005 then with this being a F serial it’s a done deal no questions asked

[X5x4x3]

I’ve just been told the model number engraved on the watch is 214270 however doesn’t this than contradict with the F serial number?

[bay_area_kid]

If the ROLEXROLEX rehaut on explorer 1s didn’t come in until later than 2004/2005 then with this being a F serial it’s a done deal no questions asked

Not quite. You can't make a judgement based on that alone. This may not be a 114270 but it can still be a genuine 214270 mk 1.

Let's ignore the dial for a second.

Just by looking at the case shape, the lugs look much wider. 114270 have more narrow lugs. Also note the diameter of the case relative to the lug width. Both references have 20mm lug widths but you can see in the 4th picture how much wider it is compared with the bracelet. With the 114270, the diameter vs lug width ratio is not as drastic.

So back to the dial.

I agree with what someone else above mentioned about it being a 214270 Mk 1. The location of "EXPLORER" on the bottom vs the older 114270 having it right below "OYSTER PERPETUAL", the rehaut engraving, the fully white gold 3-6-9 on the 214270 vs paint filled ones on the older 114270, the t-rex hands, etc.

It could simply be that someone mislabeled this as a 2004 instead of something more recent. Because all the evidence points to a 214270.

Where did the pictures come from?

[bay_area_kid]

Originally Posted by X5x4x3

I’ve just been told the model number engraved on the watch is 214270 however doesn’t this than contradict with the F serial number?

Have them take a pic of the serial number, then digitally blur out most of the serial except the first couple of digits.

Most 214270 watches have random serial numbers so the only way you can definitively tell the year is through papers. Certain details can give you a clue as to the range of the year (eg. mk 1 vs mk 2) but it's much tougher with random serial numbers.

If it's a very early 214270, then the serial number can have a "G" prefix. But that's a longshot.

[PRSWILL]

Originally Posted by StillTrying

So much look off with this. The dial print, the 3,6,9 numerals, the hands, the engraved rehaut. I am no expert but on a two second glance looks obviously off.
Stay away.

THIS- I say fake.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by ts3

it is not that easy. Sure, chances that a watch is fake are high if it was dirt cheap. But your argument doesn't work the other way around. Lots of people who paid up also have second thoughts if a watch is the real deal.

ok.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by X5x4x3

Chewbacca - I haven’t bought this nor it has a price

That’s OK they aren’t important details.

[X5x4x3]

Originally Posted by bay_area_kid

Have them take a pic of the serial number, then digitally blur out most of the serial except the first couple of digits.

Most 214270 watches have random serial numbers so the only way you can definitively tell the year is through papers. Certain details can give you a clue as to the range of the year (eg. mk 1 vs mk 2) but it's much tougher with random serial numbers.

If it's a very early 214270, then the serial number can have a "G" prefix. But that's a longshot.

Serial’s F716***

[X5x4x3]

Originally Posted by bay_area_kid

Not quite. You can't make a judgement based on that alone. This may not be a 114270 but it can still be a genuine 214270 mk 1.

Let's ignore the dial for a second.

Just by looking at the case shape, the lugs look much wider. 114270 have more narrow lugs. Also note the diameter of the case relative to the lug width. Both references have 20mm lug widths but you can see in the 4th picture how much wider it is compared with the bracelet. With the 114270, the diameter vs lug width ratio is not as drastic.

So back to the dial.

I agree with what someone else above mentioned about it being a 214270 Mk 1. The location of "EXPLORER" on the bottom vs the older 114270 having it right below "OYSTER PERPETUAL", the rehaut engraving, the fully white gold 3-6-9 on the 214270 vs paint filled ones on the older 114270, the t-rex hands, etc.

It could simply be that someone mislabeled this as a 2004 instead of something more recent. Because all the evidence points to a 214270.

Where did the pictures come from?

The photos were sent to me, I’ll have the watch tomorrow in my hand and can take/send better pics etc.

Let me know if there are any specific picture of certain parts can help?

Before someone says, I’m not buying this, as the watch belongs to an acquaintance of mine and I’m trying to find out a) whether it’s authentic and b) its value.

[Crown & Shield]

Hands look off, especially the minutes one (not pointy enough).

[winst]

If it’s real, 214270 MK1 & more likely 2014 than 2004.

[interestedwatcher]

The hands and the gap in the lug at the top right + the sort of 'squashed' appearance of the dial has me wondering if gen - but that could simply be the photos being in the wrong ratio or something... Some more daylight pictures would be great.

And yes - this has got to be the 39mm explorer I, making it more likely 2014, but definetly not 2004.

[Watch Maniac]

Looks off to me.

[fskywalker]

As said by others do no bother to look at it OP, hard pass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[G3Z]

‘Explorer’ placement confirms it’s a fake.

[Bizcut1]

Not rare enough to quibble about. Move on to another...

[Av1a]

Rehaut alignment at 55 and 5 minute markers are off

[1259]

Very fake

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by StillTrying

So much look off with this. The dial print, the 3,6,9 numerals, the hands, the engraved rehaut. I am no expert but on a two second glance looks obviously off.
Stay away.

Originally Posted by PRSWILL

THIS- I say fake.

x2. 3-6-9 are the most off - very flat and one-dimensional, as opposed to the roundedness of the real ones. Hands, particularly minute hand, also has wrong proportions. Finally, there's something I don't like about the bracelet, and how it fits against the case, but could just be the angles.