ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
26 March 2020, 03:41 PM | #61 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,552
|
Quote:
Quote:
1. In none of my posts did I argue against the mismatch of serial number and model number production period. I, as with many other members already, continue to support that a 300XXX serial is far earlier than what we know 7016 were produced. The hypothesis is that the case is questionable, at least. I think we are on the same page here. Big gap, that serial number shouldn't be seen with the case number - hard to dispute otherwise, correct? Okay. My question is, where are you reading me arguing against this? 2. My comment around the 1968 caseback and a 1969 "official" starting period of the 7016 was simply that something manufactured in 1968 then being "released" one year later is up to the brand to define. Its so close that you can believe either year to be acceptable. My question (and also Kingface's point) is what does this have to do with the watch in question here given OP's watch has such a large gap 1960 vs. 1968/1969. Anyway Larry. Lets move on. Enough craziness in this world right now to have you and I go back and forth on a forum. Stay safe. |
||
26 March 2020, 06:57 PM | #62 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australie
Posts: 31
|
Follow up
I took only a couple of Iphone pics upon inspection ... and when I realised what I had I hightailed it back to the auctioneers ...
- if anyone wants some particular aspect of a photo blown up I’ll do so with what I’ve got - sorry about the quality the size limitations for pics here hamstrings me - the first digit ‘3’ is clearly a ‘3’ folks |
27 March 2020, 06:29 AM | #63 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: richmond, va
Posts: 541
|
Quote:
alwaysthere - this response is exactly what i've been talking about - your position seems to change like a mexican jumping bean on a chessboard. 1) you argued at me like i was denying the disparity in serial number and the known production date of the 7016. That's when i responded "you realize i agree with you, right?" - to not know that you would have to have been reading my posts at the speed of light, as 3 times i had asserted the S/N and the lack of rub marks were inescapable. And yet you tell me that i'm speed reading your posts You came back with a curt 'right" and bulldozed right past and went straight back to arguing about the production date, - another position change that really amounted to just changing the argument. When I asked you, just a few posts back, if you knew we were on the same page regarding the S/N's date not in synch with the known production date, WHY WOULD YOU ARGUE AT ME LIKE I WAS DENYING THAT S/N date disparity? - (Considering you responded "right", i'm beyond mystified why). The only conclusion i can speculate is you speed reading at light speed +. Please do us both a favor and if you're going to respond to anything i post, read it at the speed of dial up internet svc - at my age I don't tolerate mental abuse well. |
|
27 March 2020, 08:42 AM | #64 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,552
|
Quote:
Sorry, OP. We went way off-track. If you followed all of our verbal diarrhea, the watch feels like a franken-watch at best. Glad you returned. |
|
28 March 2020, 05:57 AM | #65 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sweden
Watch: 1680
Posts: 1,852
|
The first digit '3' looks like a re-engraved '7' with that hook...
|
28 March 2020, 09:22 AM | #66 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 83
|
|
28 March 2020, 09:35 AM | #67 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Itinerant
Watch: 79010sg
Posts: 8,283
|
I rather like the watch
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.