ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

InTime · 21 December 2011, 04:20 AM

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/c...7/IMG_6742.jpg

this rolex looks in bad shape or is it just me?

T-Rip · 21 December 2011, 04:27 AM

whats the story behind it?

chiko323 · 21 December 2011, 06:25 AM

It might be just me, but look at the II in GMT Master II, something looks a bit fishy.

imono · 21 December 2011, 06:49 AM

Here is one to compare with.

mrbill2mrbill2 · 21 December 2011, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imono

Here is one to compare with.

What a difference! It's like night and day.

T-Rip · 21 December 2011, 08:07 AM

It looks Ok to me..I have a GMTIIC and the "II" looks like that...

perpetualman88 · 21 December 2011, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InTime

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/c...7/IMG_6742.jpg

this rolex looks in bad shape or is it just me?

you can tell the numbers on the bezel are not precision cut

cedargrove · 21 December 2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perpetualman88

you can tell the numbers on the bezel are not precision cut

Bezel numbers don't look right to me either, but it could just be all the reflection.

T-Rip · 21 December 2011, 08:23 AM

Huh...here is mine...

crowncollection · 21 December 2011, 09:22 AM

I have to say, i am with haydendillon (tom) on this one, i cannot personally see anything wrong with it, except either a large scratch or hair on the crystal or possibly the camera lens. the font on the "II" at the the end of gmt master is from the early ceramic models it has changed on the newer ones to the font in imono's photo. I have the same font on my gmt master ceramic from 2007

imono · 21 December 2011, 10:42 AM

There is nothing wrong with it.
Here is an M serial 2 Tone GMT.
You can clearly see the rectangular II.

nowzen · 21 December 2011, 03:43 PM

Not suggesting anything wrong with the watch, but an interesting difference in the tight spacing between words "OYSTER PERPETUAL DATE" compared with imono's, first example and the wide spacing of his second example.

I guess it varies?

Andad · 21 December 2011, 04:14 PM

Looks ok to moi.

lawrenceb · 23 December 2011, 02:48 PM

There is nothing wrong with the watch, its authentic.. however someone polished it incorrectly which has softened up the bezel.. its not horrible.. the up close macro shot makes it look worse than it really is.

No independent watchmaker has the tool to reinstall ceramic bezels so if the the bezel is not properly taped off you will soften it up when you refinish it.

There are guys that will swear they can reinstall the bezel without cracking it and many have been successful.. but many have not so most will avoid removing it

bondtoys · 23 December 2011, 03:18 PM

I wonder, how someone would be able to soften-polish a Ceramic bezel insert.

The Bezel looks dodgy, I would buy the watch only after an inspection of the movement.

21 December 2011, 04:27 AM	#2
T-Rip "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Tom Location: Victorville CA Watch: Rolex DSSD 116660 Posts: 3,189	whats the story behind it? __________________ T-Rip Formally known as Haydendillon Rolex: DSSD 116660, 16622 PLATTY

21 December 2011, 08:07 AM	#6
T-Rip "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Tom Location: Victorville CA Watch: Rolex DSSD 116660 Posts: 3,189	It looks Ok to me..I have a GMTIIC and the "II" looks like that... __________________ T-Rip Formally known as Haydendillon Rolex: DSSD 116660, 16622 PLATTY

21 December 2011, 08:23 AM	#9
T-Rip "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Tom Location: Victorville CA Watch: Rolex DSSD 116660 Posts: 3,189	Huh...here is mine... __________________ T-Rip Formally known as Haydendillon Rolex: DSSD 116660, 16622 PLATTY

21 December 2011, 09:22 AM	#10
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,215	I have to say, i am with haydendillon (tom) on this one, i cannot personally see anything wrong with it, except either a large scratch or hair on the crystal or possibly the camera lens. the font on the "II" at the the end of gmt master is from the early ceramic models it has changed on the newer ones to the font in imono's photo. I have the same font on my gmt master ceramic from 2007 __________________ watches many

21 December 2011, 03:43 PM	#12
nowzen "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 741	Not suggesting anything wrong with the watch, but an interesting difference in the tight spacing between words "OYSTER PERPETUAL DATE" compared with imono's, first example and the wide spacing of his second example. I guess it varies? __________________ *Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons*

21 December 2011, 06:25 AM	#3
chiko323 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: MA Watch: AP & Rolex Posts: 953	It might be just me, but look at the II in GMT Master II, something looks a bit fishy.

21 December 2011, 04:14 PM	#13
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,497	Looks ok to moi. __________________ E

23 December 2011, 02:48 PM	#14
lawrenceb 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: United States Posts: 20,964	There is nothing wrong with the watch, its authentic.. however someone polished it incorrectly which has softened up the bezel.. its not horrible.. the up close macro shot makes it look worse than it really is. No independent watchmaker has the tool to reinstall ceramic bezels so if the the bezel is not properly taped off you will soften it up when you refinish it. There are guys that will swear they can reinstall the bezel without cracking it and many have been successful.. but many have not so most will avoid removing it

23 December 2011, 03:18 PM	#15
bondtoys "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: World Watch: 16750 Posts: 2,733	I wonder, how someone would be able to soften-polish a Ceramic bezel insert. The Bezel looks dodgy, I would buy the watch only after an inspection of the movement.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)