Sub 16610LV: Dial Picture Request

[newsboy]

Sounds rather fishy to me !!

[Oyster Al]

Don't want to hurt any ones feelings BUT it is important to lookout for our fellow trf'ers. Period.

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by newsboy

Just sounds like your picture hunting to sell something you haven't got.
I've seen it before.
Apologies if I'm incorrect this time

Sounds rotten to me too!!!!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[newsboy]

Especially the ones with LV's

[Oyster Al]

Puffy, I've always wanted to ask u.....in your study of the LV's have you noticed that on some cases, if the lugs are "long"the crown guards are thin; and if lugs appear "shorter", the crown guards are thick? I,on a limited basis,feel like I've seen this, also assuming never polished but straight from ad/Rolex...maybe my eyes are playing tricks??

[shou.biao.kuang]

Originally Posted by newsboy

Just sounds like your picture hunting to sell something you haven't got.
I've seen it before.
Apologies if I'm incorrect this time

Originally Posted by Oyster Al

I'm with newsboy. Don't like that request one bit.

Originally Posted by newsboy

Sounds rather fishy to me !!

Originally Posted by Oyster Al

Don't want to hurt any ones feelings BUT it is important to lookout for our fellow trf'ers. Period.

Originally Posted by Puffy

Sounds rotten to me too!!!!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Originally Posted by newsboy

Especially the ones with LV's

LOL... I see. To be honest, this is the first time I have heard of this terminology call "picture hunting" and worse still, it was to be done with the intent to fraud! OMG

Allow me to clear the air here. First and foremost, I am looking for a 'Y' or early 'F' as part of my Rolex collection and I have been reading and researching a lot on this model, the 16610LV. And when I chanced upon this threat started by Puffy, requesting for all forumers to contribute to the cause, I was very excited and went through all the pictures here. I spent more than two hours looking at all of them but what frustrated me were some of the dial’s wordings, marking etc were “blocked” by the watches’ hands and hence it kinda hamper my analyzing of the various dials.

[newsboy]

Originally Posted by shou.biao.kuang

LOL... I see. To be honest, this is the first time I have heard of this terminology call "picture hunting" and worse still, it was to be done with the intent to fraud! OMG

Allow me to clear the air here. First and foremost, I am looking for a 'Y' or early 'F' as part of my Rolex collection and I have been reading and researching a lot on this model, the 16610LV. And when I chanced upon this threat started by Puffy, requesting for all forumers to contribute to the cause, I was very excited and went through all the pictures here. I spent more than two hours looking at all of them but what frustrated me were some of the dial’s wordings, marking etc were “blocked” by the watches’ hands and hence it kinda hamper my analyzing of the various dials.

Why did you not just post "please could you make sure the hands clear the certain markers"?

[shou.biao.kuang]

To make the matter worse, Brit78 got hold of a ‘Y’ set that has a MK II dial, so did another of the former he mentioned in his post. That got me worried because what if I bought at a premium (I was offered a ‘Y’ set unworn at USD12,000) a ‘Y’ or early ‘F’ set and the dial turned out to be a MK II or MK III dial?! What if because it is not a MK I dial, would that affect drastically the value and collectability of the ‘Y’ / ‘F’ set? And for some ‘F’ series, the dial is a MK II or even a MK III ! Which buyer would be willing to trust me that the watch is “un-molested” when a ‘Y’ set should have a MK I dial?

All these got me thinking hard and thus I was hoping to see more, clearer pictures to at least build up my confident before I plod those hard earned cash into one.

[newsboy]

Originally Posted by shou.biao.kuang

To make the matter worse, Brit78 got hold of a ‘Y’ set that has a MK II dial, so did another of the former he mentioned in his post. That got me worried because what if I bought at a premium (I was offered a ‘Y’ set unworn at USD12,000) a ‘Y’ or early ‘F’ set and the dial turned out to be a MK II or MK III dial?! What if because it is not a MK I dial, would that affect drastically the value and collectability of the ‘Y’ / ‘F’ set? And for some ‘F’ series, the dial is a MK II or even a MK III ! Which buyer would be willing to trust me that the watch is “un-molested” when a ‘Y’ set should have a MK I dial?

All these got me thinking hard and thus I was hoping to see more, clearer pictures to at least build up my confident before I plod those hard earned cash into one.

There is no hard and fast rule Rolex do as they please

[ufboy73]

personally, if you are paying 12k you are losing money whatever MK it is - wouldnt matter at that price point.

[newsboy]

Go for a sweet F series just as good in my eyes!!

[ufboy73]

Originally Posted by newsboy

Go for a sweet F series just as good in my eyes!!

if one really were going to buy into the notion of serials, MK's, etc having an impact on desirability and/or value, i DO believe there is a difference between a Y (2003) and F

[shou.biao.kuang]

So I thought if all the contributors and forumers were to post their watches’ pics with the hands moved to the 3:15/45 or 9:15/45 positions, then all of us would be able to see the pictures clearer and that should help in the researches and analysis.

I have noticed that some of the wordings are “bolder” (thicker) in some Marks compared to others. So maybe, if everyone was kind to do that little extra step, we should be able to gather all the data that are needed to compile a truly remarkable summary of the 16610LV’s life-cycle..