Something looks wrong with this cyclops

[Horehound]

Could be an aftermarket crystal. The rest of the watch looks ok


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yhzdude]

Agree...the bezel is off to the right And cyclops is a no go.
I would bit buy it for myself.
Unless the price is really low and you really want that one.
With paper and the all chebang of course.
Let us know what u decide.


Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

[Laszlo]

I would pass on this one for sure.

[Andad]

Pass!!

[DoctorA]

Looks very suspicious to me!!

[Jack T]

The cyclops for sure is wrong, I can’t tell about the bezel, but I’d rely on what others here are saying, pass on this piece.

[Foxglove]

Originally Posted by SteelSubmarinerGuy

I’m thinking of purchasing this Explorer II Polar from a friend, however the cyclops lens does not appear to be magnified correctly. Does it look funny to you guys or is it just me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that looks faker than a 3 dollar bill.

[HogwldFLTR]

I know the consensus is that it is fake. It could well be. I was wondering if it is possible that there were some replacement crystals that may have received the under powered cyclops and were added to watches in the past few years when the problem was ongoing?

[SteelSubmarinerGuy]

Originally Posted by Foxglove

that looks faker than a 3 dollar bill.

It’s not fake the crystal was replaced and bezel was not centered correctly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Foxglove]

Originally Posted by SteelSubmarinerGuy

It’s not fake the crystal was replaced and bezel was not centered correctly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No way. I have this exact watch and the magnification is WAY off. And this model never had cyclops mag issues.

[SteelSubmarinerGuy]

Originally Posted by Foxglove

No way. I have this exact watch and the magnification is WAY off. And this model never had cyclops mag issues.

I understand that the magnification is off and that’s because the crystal was replaced with an after market one. No argument on that, however whatever watchmaker the guy had do the work didn’t center the bezel correctly and used an aftermarket crystal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Foxglove]

Originally Posted by SteelSubmarinerGuy

I understand that the magnification is off and that’s because the crystal was replaced with an after market one. No argument on that, however whatever watchmaker the guy had do the work didn’t center the bezel correctly and used an aftermarket crystal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK - then what's your question?

I'm confused.

Just lookup what a Rolex crystal replacement is from RSC and deduct that from the cost of the watch -- pay that - get it replaced - done.

[SkiWatch]

It’s not a Rolex. If you look at the barrel around the dial it doesn’t have “Rolex” or serial number engraved on it.

[SteelSubmarinerGuy]

Originally Posted by SkiWatch

It’s not a Rolex. If you look at the barrel around the dial it doesn’t have “Rolex” or serial number engraved on it.

🤦🏽*♂️🤦🏽*♂️🤦🏽*♂️ omfg!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bmrisko]

Originally Posted by SkiWatch

It’s not a Rolex. If you look at the barrel around the dial it doesn’t have “Rolex” or serial number engraved on it.

Very few 5-digit references have that present...only the last of the 16570s had engraved rehaults.

[meganfox17]

****

[Andad]

I don't think there is a worldwide shortage of second hand Rolex Explorers.

So I passed on this one.

[meganfox17]

Originally Posted by SkiWatch

It’s not a Rolex. If you look at the barrel around the dial it doesn’t have “Rolex” or serial number engraved on it.

I'm giving SkiWatch the benefit of the doubt. What's the serial number on the 5 digit Polar, OP ?

[SkiWatch]

bmrisko—I don’t have your knowledge so I’ll defer to you. But aside from the cyclops it looks fishy to my untrained eyes.
My 2007 Daytona has the engraving. What year did Rolex begin the practice?

[Raza_actual]

Originally Posted by SkiWatch

bmrisko—I don’t have your knowledge so I’ll defer to you. But aside from the cyclops it looks fishy to my untrained eyes.
My 2007 Daytona has the engraving. What year did Rolex begin the practice?

According to the below link, the 16570 didn't get the engraved rehaut until it received the 3186 movement in 2008.

http://luxurytyme.com/en/rolex-relat...-rolex-models/

"Now an interesting thing happened with the five-digit 16570 in the years just prior to its discontinuation. At the same time (2008) that Rolex began shipping the last of the five-digit GMT Master II models (I call them the 16710-3186 models) which received the newer Rolex 3186 movement (M serial production), 16570 Explorer II models (both white and black dial versions) began showing up in dealer cases with an engraved rehaut (the “RolexRolexRolex engraving) and also equipped with the 3186 movement....Because the six-digit model replacement (216570) for the 16570 didn’t come until 2011, the 16570-3186 enjoyed roughly 3 more years of production before being discontinued in 2011."

So, if that's accurate, engraved rehaut Explorer II models ran from 2008 to 2011.

[SkiWatch]

Thanks for the info.

[will227457]

It might not be a pass depending on the price point. You need to do some repairs to make it “right” so factor that in.

[illusion23]

Just not feel right

[abozz]

The entire watch is a fake in my opinion.

[cht]

Originally Posted by SkiWatch

It’s not a Rolex. If you look at the barrel around the dial it doesn’t have “Rolex” or serial number engraved on it.

Originally Posted by meganfox17

I'm giving SkiWatch the benefit of the doubt. What's the serial number on the 5 digit Polar, OP ?

Originally Posted by SkiWatch

bmrisko—I don’t have your knowledge so I’ll defer to you. But aside from the cyclops it looks fishy to my untrained eyes.
My 2007 Daytona has the engraving. What year did Rolex begin the practice?

Originally Posted by abozz

The entire watch is a fake in my opinion.

It's scary how many people have no idea what they're talking about before they start trying to give advice to other members.

That is a completely genuine Rolex explorer II that as mentioned before, had the Crystal replaced at some point.
whether it was a crappy aftermarket one, or a service replacement that had the low Cyclops magnification from Rolex poor QC, who knows.


So in purchasing the watch, just budget for Crystal replacement from RSC. Hopefully the bezel will be straightened at that time, though many rolex featutes are not Rolex up even on brand new watches.
That's all. Enjoy the watch!

[abozz]

Originally Posted by cht

It's scary how many people have no idea what they're talking about before they start trying to give advice to other members.

That is a completely genuine Rolex explorer II that as mentioned before, had the Crystal replaced at some point.
whether it was a crappy aftermarket one, or a service replacement that had the low Cyclops magnification from Rolex poor QC, who knows.


So in purchasing the watch, just budget for Crystal replacement from RSC. Hopefully the bezel will be straightened at that time, though many rolex featutes are not Rolex up even on brand new watches.
That's all. Enjoy the watch!

Again, it's a complete fake in my opinion.

Enviado desde mi SM-G935F mediante Tapatalk

[watchwatcher]

Hard pass for me.

But, if you're interested, I would ask "friend" to fund a trip to RSC to install correct crystal so that you're not stuck with a big repair bill when you take possession.

[alfletch]

Originally Posted by Dr.Brian

The bezel is also off a degree or two clockwise.
No bueno.

yep

[101031-28]

I would buy to use as a serious beater if the price is really, really attractive, after verifying at RSC that the watch is 100% authentic.

[meganfox17]

Originally Posted by cht

It's scary how many people have no idea what they're talking about before they start trying to give advice to other members.
That is a completely genuine Rolex explorer II that as mentioned before
So in purchasing the watch, just budget for Crystal replacement from RSC. Hopefully the bezel will be straightened at that time, though many rolex featutes are not Rolex up even on brand new watches.
That's all. Enjoy the watch!

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your assessment and "expert evaluation". On the contrary it is scary to think that you have declared the watch genuine with just a photo or two on the forum.Really ? I have seen 3rd generation clone Rolex Explorer II Swiss made perfect 1:1 replications on the market.Have you seen a clone before Sir? I don't think so.The only way to decide whether this Explorer II is genuine or a fake or a replica or a clone or whatever you want to call it is to open the caseback at the RSC and let watchmaker examine the movement. Period!