ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Andad · 10 April 2007, 10:16 PM

A friend of my son at College was sporting a Rolex Sub today that his parents bought him.
Any idea of the model year for this one?
It had no spring bar holes.

colemanitis · 10 April 2007, 10:37 PM

Since it doesn't have lug holes I would imagine it's a 16610, the current model Submariner.

padi56 · 10 April 2007, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directioneng

A friend of my son at College was sporting a Rolex Sub today that his parents bought him.
Any idea of the model year for this one?
It had no spring bar holes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemanitis

Since it doesn't have lug holes I would imagine it's a 16610, the current model Submariner.

Well no lug holes from the Y-series 2003 or so on,the 16610 was introduced in the late 1980s.And has not basically changed since then, except for the no lug holes and SEL.In-fact very very little change in the sub in the last 40 odd years,sure a few minor movement improvement changes.But Not very happy the crown etching is so visible in picture thats a worry.

nko51 · 10 April 2007, 10:55 PM

New model! The boy comes from a family with deep pockets!

mansion · 10 April 2007, 11:19 PM

Can I spot the crown etching at 6 o'clock?

mansion · 10 April 2007, 11:20 PM

Seems a little big though. Fake?...

oldbreadstinks · 10 April 2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nko51

New model! The boy comes from a family with deep pockets!

lol thats what i thought when i read the post,

btw is his dad hoping to add anymore members to his family? i would like to volunteer my services if membership comes with a sub

rxgremlin · 11 April 2007, 01:57 AM

If that is the actual watch you are talking about, it is a fake.

kenlperry · 11 April 2007, 03:34 AM

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, regarding it's authenticity.. It looks like one of the better replicas though. But the etched crown shows a little too clear, so I'd have some doubt as to it's realness...

diablojota · 11 April 2007, 04:00 AM

That is a fake. The Ms don't line up and the etching in the crystal is far to bold. It's a well done fake, but a fake non-the-less.

JJ Irani · 11 April 2007, 04:15 AM

Like the guys say, Eddie, that sure is a fake....but a good fake.

Here ya go...compare that picture with this original baby (my ex) and you will see that the 'm' that follows the 300 does not line up with the 'M' of the CHRONOMETER below.

Also notice how squarish the numbers are on that bezel as compared with the real one below.

JJ

advocatia · 11 April 2007, 04:32 AM

I'm very perplexed by the intention of the original post. A sub is readily identifiable as is the POS fake in the picture. And... I have seen that pic circulated on the internet before.

Was this a "test the reaction to the fake" on a WIS site? I don't get it.

Welshwatchman · 11 April 2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Like the guys say, Eddie, that sure is a fake....but a good fake.

Here ya go...compare that picture with this original baby

Thanks JJ,

The original fakey pic left a foul taste in my mouth and your SS beauty has cleansed my palette nicely.

Andad · 11 April 2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by advocatia

I'm very perplexed by the intention of the original post. A sub is readily identifiable as is the POS fake in the picture. And... I have seen that pic circulated on the internet before.

Was this a "test the reaction to the fake" on a WIS site? I don't get it.

Hi advocatia,

The pix is from my sons digital camera taken yesterday. You have not seen this pix on the internet until yesterday on this site. With this in mind I am not surprised that you are perplexed. My son has the answer he wanted and that was the approx model year. Thank you.

JJ. Thanks for your input and comparative pix.

PS. What does POS and WIS mean?

diablojota · 11 April 2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directioneng

Hi advocatia,

The pix is from my sons digital camera taken yesterday. You have not seen this pix on the internet until yesterday on this site. With this in mind I am not surprised that you are perplexed. My son has the answer he wanted and that was the approx model year. Thank you.

JJ. Thanks for your input and comparative pix.

PS. What does POS and WIS mean?

Well, it makes no difference what the model year is as it is a fake. Not even a real Rolex. Even the bracelet and lug alignment are wrong. The only thing that is about accurate on that watch is the cyclops eye magnification. The model year is irrelevant on a fake.

JJ Irani · 11 April 2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directioneng

Hi advocatia,

The pix is from my sons digital camera taken yesterday. You have not seen this pix on the internet until yesterday on this site. With this in mind I am not surprised that you are perplexed. My son has the answer he wanted and that was the approx model year. Thank you.

JJ. Thanks for your input and comparative pix.

PS. What does POS and WIS mean?

POS = Piece of sh!t

WIS = Watch Idiot Savant!!

Thurnau · 11 April 2007, 10:40 AM

I think his second hand is a little short too.

10 April 2007, 10:37 PM	#2
colemanitis "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Jeff Location: Florida Watch: PAM 1090 Posts: 3,723	Since it doesn't have lug holes I would imagine it's a 16610, the current model Submariner. __________________ Member #471

10 April 2007, 10:55 PM	#4
nko51 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Real Name: Alex Location: USA Watch: TT Blue Sub Posts: 2,542	New model! The boy comes from a family with deep pockets! __________________

11 April 2007, 03:34 AM	#9
kenlperry "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Real Name: KP Location: Washington D.C. Watch: Rolex 19018 Posts: 232	Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, regarding it's authenticity.. It looks like one of the better replicas though. But the etched crown shows a little too clear, so I'd have some doubt as to it's realness... __________________ "Promise Less and Do more"

11 April 2007, 04:00 AM	#10
diablojota "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Real Name: Frank Location: Chattanooga, TN Watch: SS Submariner Date Posts: 4,042	That is a fake. The Ms don't line up and the etching in the crystal is far to bold. It's a well done fake, but a fake non-the-less. __________________ RTFT - Read The Friggin' Thread FcB

11 April 2007, 04:15 AM	#11
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,319	Like the guys say, Eddie, that sure is a fake....but a good fake. Here ya go...compare that picture with this original baby (my ex) and you will see that the 'm' that follows the 300 does not line up with the 'M' of the CHRONOMETER below. Also notice how squarish the numbers are on that bezel as compared with the real one below. JJ __________________ Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!

10 April 2007, 11:19 PM	#5
mansion Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: switzerland Posts: 196	Can I spot the crown etching at 6 o'clock?

10 April 2007, 11:20 PM	#6
mansion Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: switzerland Posts: 196	Seems a little big though. Fake?...

11 April 2007, 01:57 AM	#8
rxgremlin Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 79	If that is the actual watch you are talking about, it is a fake.

11 April 2007, 04:32 AM	#12
advocatia Banned Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Andy Location: Florida USA Watch: PAM 422 GMTIIC Posts: 868	I'm very perplexed by the intention of the original post. A sub is readily identifiable as is the POS fake in the picture. And... I have seen that pic circulated on the internet before. Was this a "test the reaction to the fake" on a WIS site? I don't get it.

11 April 2007, 10:40 AM	#17
Thurnau "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Metairie, LA Watch: DateJust Posts: 738	I think his second hand is a little short too.

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