ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
28 June 2024, 05:00 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 15
|
Original owner 1680 Single Red bought in Beirut in 1973 - dial athenticity
Dear all,
Here is a pretty crazy story. I was in Lebanon for a few days and met in a restaurant the owner of a what appears to be a magnificent Rolex Submariner 1680 single Red Mk VI from early 70s. Examining the piece closer, I realized the bezel is fake. The case and bracelet appeared to be unpolished and pretty worn out. We could see the watch lived a beautiful life. Analysing the dial, it looked like closely as a Mark 6 version. However, asking around a few contacts, they pointed out it might be fake due to different issues such as: - Size of the Submariner: Same length as the depth writing when on other MK6 the Submariner writing is smaller. - Thickness of the font which appears thicker than the other models I compared it with. - Font of the Swiss < 0.25 which also appears different than other models I compared it with. The 'S' are more rounded and not zig zag. Attached you could find different picture of the watch, as well as comparisons with an original MK VI. Here is the thing. The owner explained the watch was offered by his cousin in Beirut back in the early 70s. When I looked at the serial (7.3 mil), I could date it back to 1973. Which he confirmed. Now here comes the interesting part. When I mentioned to him the fake bezel (that was actually stick with glue), he told me he brought the watch to a watch maker around 10 years ago as the bezel started moving (maybe fell off I don't know). My assumption here is that he replaced the original one with a fake one so it could hold. Now, when my contacts told be it is a fake dial, I thought the watchmaker he brought the watch to screw him big, and took the bezel and dial, replacing them with counterfeit parts. The owner really insisted this wouldn't be possible because he didn't left the watch long enough. I am therefore turning back to you guys, to have your opinion on the originality of the dial, and to understand, if by any chance it could be the real, original dial on this watch. I am looking forward to hearing your thought on this watch. Hope I can get back to the owner with reassuring news. Thanks for your contribution. Best, MA |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.