Is this 1680 Real?

[jaco70]

Purchased this very recently and it just delivered and I have my suspicions - but admittedly it could just be me! First concern is that it was advertised as being from 1970 (specific) and the reference # is 5,098,XXX - so clearly 1977.

IMG_6030.jpg

IMG_6027a.jpg

IMG_6029a.jpg

[SS Oyster]

I’d post this in the vintage section for more informed response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dpt.calvin]

Font looks off (The R looks funny, the horizontal portion of the L looks long, the serifs look too sharp) and numbers on bezel look messy. At least to my eyes.

https://italianwatchspotter.com/ever...-1680/?lang=en

[Cobar65]

Damn, I would have never spotted that. It’s getting more and more difficult to spot fakes (if this is indeed a questionable piece).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cobar65]

Originally Posted by jaco70

Purchased this very recently and it just delivered and I have my suspicions - but admittedly it could just be me! First concern is that it was advertised as being from 1970 (specific) and the reference # is 5,098,XXX - so clearly 1977.

Attachment 1262872

Attachment 1262868

Attachment 1262867

I don’t want to sound harsh or anything. But why didn’t you do your DD before buying the watch? This is your first post, and you ask if the 15 grand watch you bought is authentic? Did you ask and check the serial number prior to buying it? Many questions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pilot1985]

Originally Posted by dpt.calvin

Font looks off (The R looks funny, the horizontal portion of the L looks long, the serifs look too sharp) and numbers on bezel look messy. At least to my eyes.

https://italianwatchspotter.com/ever...-1680/?lang=en

Here is some to compare. The camera used is not an iphone like the OP and the quality is definitely different but I do not see the same as you. of course would love to see more photos.

https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/l1og

https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/asjc

https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/vgkt


And for the bezel, definitely more close of photos would be nice but looks like a MK 5.1 according to Xeramic's table with an incomplete 4. Maybe Im wrong.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...r-t266367.html

If this is a counterfeit dial and bezel then it fooled me...

[4rnold]

It looks quite legit to me, the dial does not seem 'off'. It looks like an MK2 dial.

The funny R is normal,imho

[Nickn]

Pitting between the lugs and wear from the bracelet end links looks legit
I cannot think how a faker could duplicate these

[4rnold]

Originally Posted by Nickn

Pitting between the lugs and wear from the bracelet end links looks legit
I cannot think how a faker could duplicate these

Indeed, also the patina on hour markers and hands look the same. The pearl is discoloured, but the colour looks very plausible

there is nothing that alarms me

about the wrong year, I think the seller just made a mistake?

[Dan S]

This is just speculation, but maybe it has a swapped case-back that indicates 1970 on the inside. That could have led to a mistake by a naive seller. I like the watch at first glance.

[1675-David]

Nice looking Sub, don’t see any issues.

[swaini3]

dial print looks like a genuine Mk2, engraving looks ok from that angle, a straight picture would be better to judge. Bezel and insert look fine too.

[dpt.calvin]

Originally Posted by 4rnold

It looks quite legit to me, the dial does not seem 'off'. It looks like an MK2 dial.

The funny R is normal,imho

I agree, it's a mk2 dial if anything. But the numbers on the bezel still look a bit off to me. And I'm still skeptical about the dial. Fakes are incredibly detailed these days. But now that it's not midnight and I am seeing it with fresher eyes, it does look better (I think I had blurred vision last night, ha!).

Originally Posted by Nickn

Pitting between the lugs and wear from the bracelet end links looks legit
I cannot think how a faker could duplicate these

This was the only thing that made me doubt the yellow flags I saw. But again, you'd be surprised at the length people go to these days. It's not unreasonable to cause intentional wear and tear to the lugs.

[JustinK]

Looks like a nice example to me. Enjoy it!

[springer]

Looks legit. Many 40 and 50-year-old watches have had parts switched out or replaced. That's what happens when you get "old"...things change.

[Nickn]

I think it would be very hard if not impossible to get that corrosion just right

[Cobar65]

Originally Posted by Nickn

I think it would be very hard if not impossible to get that corrosion just right

Have a gander at some of those “fake” forums and see what is going on. They have cases that are manufactured in Vietnam, costing about $1k; these cases are 1:1, and what they put them through to make them look like the real thing. Grant you, corrosion would be hard to falsify; however, I’m not an expert in that field and wouldn’t know. I know they put these watches together with all OEM Rolex parts and pass them off as genuine. Indeed the dark side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dr.Smellody]

Originally Posted by springer

Looks legit. Many 40 and 50-year-old watches have had parts switched out or replaced. That's what happens when you get "old"...things change.

Sound advice!

[Kingface66]

It looks totally legit to me. One can go down a deep rabbit hole looking for reasons to call in inauthentic

[mattedialdoc]

100% peachy. Enjoy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KY..]

Originally Posted by jaco70

Purchased this very recently and it just delivered and I have my suspicions - but admittedly it could just be me! First concern is that it was advertised as being from 1970 (specific) and the reference # is 5,098,XXX - so clearly 1977.

Remember, if it were a 1970 1680 it should be a Red Sub not a White Sub.
I compared it to my ‘77 1680 that I’ve had for a very very long time and see no obvious issues.
Enjoy your new pickup!!