ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

cruvon · 6 October 2011, 11:53 AM

Just saw this red on the bay, looks all original? The hands and markers don't look matching to me.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/AUTHENTIC...item1c1f6544a0

Michael M. · 6 October 2011, 11:59 AM

Looks original to me, sometimes the hands & markers don't age evenly. The papers also seem to match, which is a plus. Case looks fairly thick, and seems to retain a slight original bevel. Looks like a bit above average example of a 1680 Red B&P IMO

SPARTAN2161 · 6 October 2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael M.

Looks original to me, sometimes the hands & markers don't age evenly. The papers also seem to match, which is a plus. Case looks fairly thick, and seems to retain a slight original bevel. Looks like a bit above average example of a 1680 Red B&P IMO

x2 Nothing really stood out on this piece as being wrong.

toph · 6 October 2011, 01:19 PM

i reckon the hands might have been changed. Sometimes hands and the tritium can detriorate/fall off etc so he might have had them replaced with 'correct period ones' as close a fit as was available.

buffy · 6 October 2011, 03:32 PM

Well isn't the 1680 40mm, but the bracelet is not original as he stats!
93510, with clasp code T3 is from March 1995.....
And 501b end pieces on a 1680... it isn't even correct....

fusionstorm · 6 October 2011, 03:44 PM

Insert is not the original fat font. Highly unlikely the crystal is original as well. Hands and dial plots having matching patina is not a given, so can't say for sure if one or the other is not original to the piece.

The accessories are later vintage, such as the anchor.

buffy · 6 October 2011, 04:40 PM

beveled service Cyclop 127 crystal?

Mark020 · 6 October 2011, 06:06 PM

Markers are shot/washed (look at i.e. the 2). And caseback should have date code, 3.3 serial is 1972/1973?

cruvon · 7 October 2011, 06:04 PM

Thanks guys, some sleuth work here:)

Ezza8 · 8 October 2011, 07:35 AM

Washed out markers is a significant issue. Non matching hands can be an eye sore.

The item has been up before, but for whatever reason, has been relisted. Original listing:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/370537951684

Also seller didn't reply when I asked him whether the last digit on warranty paper matched the watch.

cruvon · 10 October 2011, 11:59 AM

Looks like it sold for more than last time at 10,600AUD

inspires · 10 October 2011, 01:21 PM

Washed markers would make me shy away from this piece.

Mark020 · 10 October 2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruvon

Looks like it sold for more than last time at 10,600AUD

Or 7700E. Way too much imho.

soundserious · 10 October 2011, 10:24 PM

the triplock crown isn't original is it?

i have the same watch and mine has a triplock, but i thought all red subs came with twins?

6 October 2011, 11:53 AM	#1
cruvon "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Australia Posts: 4,689	Red all original? Just saw this red on the bay, looks all original? The hands and markers don't look matching to me. http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/AUTHENTIC...item1c1f6544a0 __________________ Last thing I remember, I was Running outta sight I had to find the passage back,To the place I was before. ’Relax,’ said this Rolex place,We are programmed to receive. You can checkout any time you like, But you can never leave!

6 October 2011, 01:19 PM	#4
toph "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: ChrisTOPHer Location: Sydney Watch: Rolex, Brellum, Posts: 12,601	i reckon the hands might have been changed. Sometimes hands and the tritium can detriorate/fall off etc so he might have had them replaced with 'correct period ones' as close a fit as was available. __________________ "Where no counsel is the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety." Member No.# 11795

6 October 2011, 03:44 PM	#6
fusionstorm "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Piedmont, CA Watch: various vintage Posts: 2,270	Insert is not the original fat font. Highly unlikely the crystal is original as well. Hands and dial plots having matching patina is not a given, so can't say for sure if one or the other is not original to the piece. The accessories are later vintage, such as the anchor. __________________ 1680 MK II 2.2M (my daily); 1655 MK IV 8.1M (my 1st vintage); 16660 x 4 - 8.0M spider & matte 7.4M, 8.0M, 8.0M; 16610LV F MK I/MK I; 116528 Z; 14060 M COSC; Tudor 75090 Gone.....never forgotten: 14000 F, 14060 V COSC, PAM 048, 16623 F, 1680 MK V 3.1M, 16800 matte 8.3M & 1655 MK IV 7.4M

7 October 2011, 06:04 PM	#9
cruvon "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Australia Posts: 4,689	Thanks guys, some sleuth work here:) __________________ Last thing I remember, I was Running outta sight I had to find the passage back,To the place I was before. ’Relax,’ said this Rolex place,We are programmed to receive. You can checkout any time you like, But you can never leave!

8 October 2011, 07:35 AM	#10
Ezza8 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Australia Watch: Rolex Posts: 165	Washed out markers is a significant issue. Non matching hands can be an eye sore. The item has been up before, but for whatever reason, has been relisted. Original listing: http://www.ebay.com/itm/370537951684 Also seller didn't reply when I asked him whether the last digit on warranty paper matched the watch. Last edited by Ezza8; 8 October 2011 at 07:44 AM.. Reason: fix link

6 October 2011, 11:59 AM	#2
Michael M. Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Newport Beach, CA Posts: 8,391	Looks original to me, sometimes the hands & markers don't age evenly. The papers also seem to match, which is a plus. Case looks fairly thick, and seems to retain a slight original bevel. Looks like a bit above average example of a 1680 Red B&P IMO

6 October 2011, 03:32 PM	#5
buffy "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Watch: 1680 Posts: 188	Well isn't the 1680 40mm, but the bracelet is not original as he stats! 93510, with clasp code T3 is from March 1995..... And 501b end pieces on a 1680... it isn't even correct....

6 October 2011, 04:40 PM	#7
buffy "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Watch: 1680 Posts: 188	beveled service Cyclop 127 crystal?

6 October 2011, 06:06 PM	#8
Mark020 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 2,145	Markers are shot/washed (look at i.e. the 2). And caseback should have date code, 3.3 serial is 1972/1973?

10 October 2011, 11:59 AM	#11
cruvon "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Australia Posts: 4,689	Looks like it sold for more than last time at 10,600AUD __________________ Last thing I remember, I was Running outta sight I had to find the passage back,To the place I was before. ’Relax,’ said this Rolex place,We are programmed to receive. You can checkout any time you like, But you can never leave!

10 October 2011, 01:21 PM	#12
inspires "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Real Name: Eric Location: Hong Kong Watch: 1665 Posts: 1,495	Washed markers would make me shy away from this piece. __________________ _____________ All GREEN

10 October 2011, 10:24 PM	#14
soundserious "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: usofmfa Posts: 3,157	the triplock crown isn't original is it? i have the same watch and mine has a triplock, but i thought all red subs came with twins?

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