Original owner 1680 Single Red bought in Beirut in 1973 - dial athenticity

[mabur]

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

[MrBlobby]

What made you take the caseback off it?

[Dan S]

Why are you picking this guy’s watch apart? Did he offer to sell it?

[MrBlobby]

He just want reassurance to the guy who owns it that the watch is okay apart from the fake insert and the questionable dial.

Unless I misunderstood the post.

This is interesting too;
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=856427

[MrBlobby]

And why is there a gmt with the bracelet removed? It seems like an odd restaurant.

[btinl]

It’s fake.

[MrBlobby]

Crazy

[mabur]

Originally Posted by btinl

It’s fake.

The whole watch ?

[mabur]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

He just want reassurance to the guy who owns it that the watch is okay apart from the fake insert and the questionable dial.

Unless I misunderstood the post.

This is interesting too;
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=856427

Exactly :) ps the watch in my other thread got sold by Philipps in Geneva in the end ��

[MrBlobby]

Oh yes, https://www.phillips.com/detail/role...2&searchPage=1

[mabur]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

And why is there a gmt with the bracelet removed? It seems like an odd restaurant.

The owner went to a watchmaker to open the watch. Pic from the owner

[MrBlobby]

I think you’d need better photos of the various elements. I can’t see anything wrong with the caseback. I wonder about the case engravings. It would be nice to see more pictures of the date wheel. You already know there are issues with the dial.

[swish77]

At a minimum, the dial ain't right. It's either fake or a bad re-dial.

Also, the serial number appears to be a 3.4 mil. (not 7.3 mil.), which would be correct for about 1973.

[77T]

It does appear to me that the cliche used for that dial was worn out, or the pad, or both.

I don't believe a dial with those fat fonts was on that watch originally.

But unless you're buying then I wouldn't worry about picking apart the anomalies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dom9]

The SWISS-T <25 looks deeply suspicious!

Everything poorly refinished by the watchmaker who changed the insert!?

[1675-David]

the dial is fake.

[swaini3]

Haven't seen a dial like that before. Can't zoom into the caseback pic too much, the stamp is different from the genuine ones.

[joli160]

As for your watch I don’t know but been there many times and have been offered great deals on valuable brands. All rubbish, many artists around.

[MrBlobby]

Originally Posted by swaini3

Haven't seen a dial like that before. Can't zoom into the caseback pic too much, the stamp is different from the genuine ones.

Which stamp didn’t you like? I compared it to another online and it looked like a good match to me.

I was curious about the serial as I thought the numbers were spaced out. Is there some variation around the spacing on serial stamping?

[watchfreak207]

I think if you compare the stamp on the caseback with those pre 72 with date, the Montres Rolex SA is further away from the edge. this one looks closer to the edge. just an observation.

[MrBlobby]

I thought the caseback looked similar to this
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=447133

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

Which stamp didn’t you like? I compared it to another online and it looked like a good match to me.

I was curious about the serial as I thought the numbers were spaced out. Is there some variation around the spacing on serial stamping?

The square G of Geneva, the S of Switzerland, the 2nd E of Patented is smaller etc. none of the 1680 casebacks are like that. It could be pixellation but highly doubt its genuine from that pic.

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by watchfreak207

I think if you compare the stamp on the caseback with those pre 72 with date, the Montres Rolex SA is further away from the edge. this one looks closer to the edge. just an observation.

they could be off position, not always the same

[MrBlobby]

Originally Posted by swaini3

The square G of Geneva, the S of Switzerland, the 2nd E of Patented is smaller etc. none of the 1680 casebacks are like that. It could be pixellation but highly doubt its genuine from that pic.

A better photo would help. I felt it was pretty good if not right but I see what you mean.

I know it’s all irrelevant given the dial but do you have a view on the serial number stamp spacing?

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

do you have a view on the serial number stamp spacing?

With this font, they can be more spaced out than other type fonts, even if in the same year.

[MrBlobby]

Interesting. Thank you