Papers from Kowloon Hong Kong - What do you think?

[KDA]

Hi all,

With all this talk about fake papers on the VRF...

I have recently seen three sets of papers all out of Kowloon in the 1960s. One owned by Bluemartinfan (I hope he doesn't mind me using his pic from another thread), mine, and another I just saw on a dealer site. All for submariners.

Is this too much of a coincidence? Do you think we have anything to be concerned about?

KDA

[jedly1]

id want to look closely at the top one...2.8 and 1972 is very lte for that style of papers...plus the wrong trnslation guide and wrong box combo would mean id like a good look.

ps. lots of watches from hk in general as there are tons of dealers and buyers.

[john11f]

I just recently bought a red sub coming from HK too. I would follow this thread closely.

[conrail]

Originally Posted by jedly1

id want to look closely at the top one...2.8 and 1972 is very lte for that style of papers...plus the wrong trnslation guide and wrong box combo would mean id like a good look.

ps. lots of watches from hk in general as there are tons of dealers and buyers.

x2. I wouldn't panic people, but if you're paying a premium because a watch has papers, you should examine those papers just as you would examine each detail of the watch, after all, now you're adding $$ to the deal because of some paper which is much easier to manipulate than the watch as a whole. Tougher still, the paper itself is almost always real, just the punching or stamping added later to a previously-blank cert.

[KDA]

Originally Posted by conrail

x2. I wouldn't panic people, but if you're paying a premium because a watch has papers, you should examine those papers just as you would examine each detail of the watch, after all, now you're adding $$ to the deal because of some paper which is much easier to manipulate than the watch as a whole. Tougher still, the paper itself is almost always real, just the punching or stamping added later to a previously-blank cert.

The problem with these papers is that I wouldn't know what to look for. Two observations:

1. in the top pic the paper is punched while in the bottom two they are stamped.

2. with regard to the two stamped papers, is this done by a machine? certainly not the same machine as the number "2" is different...

KDA

[Keeperoftime]

I never buy watches with papers from Hong Kong. I have nothing against Hong Kong (or the people), I just have seen too many vintage pieces unearthed recently from H.K I might be silly and paranoid but I don't think being overly cautious is bad when spending this type of money. Just my honest opinion.

[mistral]

KDA

Second picture is identical to mine; I'm the original owner of my Rolex.
On the Warrranty booklet, SN is hand written and has a stamped AD stamp on it.

[Mark020]

In general (so: in no way I want to opine on the papers shown above): if people can counterfeit dollars then it would be strange not to expect people to counterfeit papers if a premium of thousands of $ are paid for them. Face it: these papers are not that hard to counterfeit. I'm waiting for someone with acces to a lab to investigate some of those papers. My bet would be that a lot of them are nowhere as old as the are supposed to be.

[Keeperoftime]

Many forgers are using vintage papers. It is a matter of Ink and aging of punched serials.In short, not sure much can be done except careful comparison and seller credibility.

[edouble141]

The papers posted in the 3 photos above are garbage and worthless. Those booklets are for sale on ebay for $50. They were NEVER punched which eliminates he first photo as possibly being genuine.

The next two photos are stamped in red by known counterfeiters in California and also never existed in real life.

All 3 papers are worthless.

[tattooedfagin]

Originally Posted by edouble141

The next two photos are stamped in red by known counterfeiters in California

and how do you know that ?

[conrail]

Originally Posted by edouble141

The papers posted in the 3 photos above are garbage and worthless. Those booklets are for sale on ebay for $50. They were NEVER punched which eliminates he first photo as possibly being genuine.

The next two photos are stamped in red by known counterfeiters in California and also never existed in real life.

All 3 papers are worthless.

Ahh Beever, is that you from VRF? Decided to join us over here now eh.

How about sharing some concrete evidence to backup your allegations.

I notice you like promoting your own auctions too: http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=197192
http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...sting-+BEEVER-

[tattooedfagin]

Originally Posted by conrail

Ahh Beever, is that you from VRF? Decided to join us over here now eh.

How about sharing some concrete evidence to backup your allegations.

I notice you like promoting your own auctions too: http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=197192
http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...sting-+BEEVER-

exactly, King Tafari got it in the neck the other day, would these Californian Kowloon paper stampers be the very same guys mentioned in the VRF thread ?

[kyle L]

Originally Posted by conrail

Ahh Beever, is that you from VRF? Decided to join us over here now eh.

How about sharing some concrete evidence to backup your allegations.

I notice you like promoting your own auctions too: http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=197192
http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...sting-+BEEVER-

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by edouble141

The papers posted in the 3 photos above are garbage and worthless. Those booklets are for sale on ebay for $50. They were NEVER punched which eliminates he first photo as possibly being genuine.

The next two photos are stamped in red by known counterfeiters in California and also never existed in real life.

All 3 papers are worthless.

when you buy a watch with this style of papers..they are not worthless, they should add maybe 500gbp to the value of the package that is all, the value of the papers if they were loose....they are not like punched papers that add (rightly or wrongly - a different debate) 20-50%. --- and yes in light of recent events i guess from now on they dont do that any more

There were some punched version of these, punching isnt the problem.

and there are many many stamped real ones like this, this is how they were done at that time, and the reality is that the well faked ones onto blank papers are indistinguishable from the originals...the papers that cost 50 on ebay are nothing like this and once you have them in hand you can tell, the paper, the stapels, the print quality is all wrong...the blank ones that are original cost about $700-1000 in the open market so none of these 'sets' should ever attract a value of more than that.

[bluemartinifan]

Originally Posted by edouble141

The papers posted in the 3 photos above are garbage and worthless. Those booklets are for sale on ebay for $50. They were NEVER punched which eliminates he first photo as possibly being genuine.

The next two photos are stamped in red by known counterfeiters in California and also never existed in real life.

All 3 papers are worthless.

WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU

The bottom paper starting with 175 is mine. I bought it loose along with a 1.7 mil 5513 from one of the most respected vintage Rolex dealers on any continent.

Prove to me my papers are fake - who are these known counterfieters in California - prove to me this highly credible and esteemed vintage Rolex dealer is selling fake papers
Prove it on this site or PM me that these papers never existed in real life - go ahead .... don't be a COWARD - if you prove it with fact based logic - you will get my apology...

[CapitalIQ]

[jedly1]

your papers look fine to me russ, and exactly what id expect to see.

[Michael M.]

Originally Posted by edouble141

The papers posted in the 3 photos above are garbage and worthless. Those booklets are for sale on ebay for $50. They were NEVER punched which eliminates he first photo as possibly being genuine.

The next two photos are stamped in red by known counterfeiters in California and also never existed in real life.

All 3 papers are worthless.

I disagree, 1st of all, original 1st owner full sets have been found with punched papers like the 1st one. The 2nd one may be fake, not 100% sure though. The 3rd though paper though came with a 1st owner 5513 purchased through one of the best dealers worldwide, Andrew Shear, I have no doubt that the 3rd one is real!

Also here is what is supposedly a watch you sold:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/130578281367#ht_11814wt_1076

If I'm not mistaken, this watch should have papers like the ones shown above, and according to you the papers to this 5513 you sold are punched....and in your post above you said there have never been any punched papers like the ones above....could you explain..and perhaps post pictures that werent present in the auction??

[HL65]

The sad thing is that this has been going on for a long time and a few bad people now are going to cast darkness into papers in general. Russ--I know who your papers came from and IMHO you have nothing to worry about. It is easy for people to throw out bold allegations but they are meaningless unless one can factually back them up and has the credentials to do so.

[bluemartinifan]

OK - now that Jed, Ken and Michael have pulled me out of the bar after 6 double shots of vodka and walked me off the ledge - I am ready to learn from the master... EDouble141 - PLEASE back up your post with fact based logic.

[mistral]

I can vouch that #2 is real; I have an identical one that has AD stamp, dated at the time of purchase and SN# matches, ie on the guarantee booklet and on my watch. SN is 2xxxxxx.
BTW I'm one of the rare type in that I'm the original owner. I have posted pic of my watch on this forum.



Ken

[harry in montreal]

i think you guys have been sucessfully baited by a troll.

however, you need to understand that all you need is an old book with a nice old piece of paper to get the process going to fake one of those 'papers'. its such a small insignificant piece of paper that comes in countless variations... i have no idea why people pay so much for them; the risk is just too great.

[KDA]

Originally Posted by mistral

I can vouch that #2 is real; I have an identical one that has AD stamp, dated at the time of purchase and SN# matches, ie on the guarantee booklet and on my watch. SN is 2xxxxxx.
BTW I'm one of the rare type in that I'm the original owner. I have posted pic of my watch on this forum.



Ken

Hi Ken

As I am the owner of number 2, would you be kind enough to post a pic of your papers (and box if you have it) for my interest? I have the box and some other bits and pieces too...

KDA

PS - Thanks for the all the great info and debate guys!

[mistral]

Ken

[KDA]

Thanks - and yes, you are right - it's just the same.

What a watch and what a set!

[KDA]

Also of interest is that your papers are dated 69 but the watch was sold a few years later. A user here named Springer often says that watches and papers often sat around shops much longer during the 70s and that its not unusal to have a watch with a serial number from the late 60s with papers and sale receipts from the early 1970s. Your set goes to further prove this point.

Mine is a serial from the late sixties, guarantee from 69, and a booklet and box from 71 or 72 i cant remember.

[mistral]

Originally Posted by KDA

Thanks - and yes, you are right - it's just the same.

What a watch and what a set!

Thank you....



Ken

[KDA]

Originally Posted by mistral

Thank you....



Ken

Thank you for taking the time to share with us!

[nowzen]

Originally Posted by Keeperoftime

I never buy watches with papers from Hong Kong. I have nothing against Hong Kong (or the people), I just have seen too many vintage pieces unearthed recently from H.K I might be silly and paranoid but I don't think being overly cautious is bad when spending this type of money. Just my honest opinion.

What does that mean exactly?

Sounds like a touch of xenophobia.

Maybe you hear about Hong Kong because this little city buys twice as many luxury Swiss watches as the entire US of A?