The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Classifieds > WatchOut!!!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 16 January 2013, 06:14 AM   #1
GradyPhilpott
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
GradyPhilpott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: Seiko #SRK050
Posts: 34,454
Anyone Want to Weigh in on This Sub?

A friend of mine is interested in selling his TT Sub, so I was looking around ebay to see what they're going for these days.

I found this one that looks a little fishy.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROLEX-SUBMAR...item53f2056f8b
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 618672764_o.jpg (103.7 KB, 276 views)
File Type: jpg 618672890_o.jpg (38.0 KB, 274 views)
File Type: jpg 618673070_o.jpg (91.6 KB, 277 views)
__________________
JJ

Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner
GradyPhilpott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 06:19 AM   #2
toph
"TRF" Member
 
toph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: ChrisTOPHer
Location: Sydney
Watch: Rolex, Brellum,
Posts: 12,601
Watch looks fine but I am concerned about sellers lack of knowledge of the watch, newer box and strange warranty card that isn't
p.s a decent one goes fir between 6 and 7.5k pre owned
__________________


"Where no counsel is the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety."

Member No.# 11795
toph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 06:39 AM   #3
joseluu
"TRF" Member
 
joseluu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Madrid (Spain)
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by toph View Post
Watch looks fine but I am concerned about sellers lack of knowledge of the watch, newer box and strange warranty card that isn't
p.s a decent one goes fir between 6 and 7.5k pre owned
Well, maybe the box, I said maybe. All the rest is as fake as it can be.
joseluu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 06:41 AM   #4
Noonan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: US
Watch: 3570.50
Posts: 2,156
Date magnification certainly looks off. Could just be the angle of the pic. And shouldn't there be gold on the clasp too??
Noonan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 06:44 AM   #5
lebowski321
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Real Name: Tyler
Location: Hill Country, TX
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noonan View Post
Date magnification certainly looks off.
x2
lebowski321 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 07:07 AM   #6
cajunron
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
cajunron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Ronnie
Location: Southeastern USA
Watch: Omega Seamaster PO
Posts: 3,872
Pearl surround, date font (date disc), date mag look suspect, IMO.
__________________
cajunron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 07:10 AM   #7
joseluu
"TRF" Member
 
joseluu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Madrid (Spain)
Posts: 702
The best thing is the warranty card of the watch winder!!!
joseluu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 07:16 AM   #8
GradyPhilpott
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
GradyPhilpott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: Seiko #SRK050
Posts: 34,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseluu View Post
The best thing is the warranty card of the watch winder!!!


I say it's as phony as a three dollar bill.
__________________
JJ

Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner
GradyPhilpott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 07:21 AM   #9
crowncollection
"TRF" Member
 
crowncollection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: David
Location: australia
Posts: 20,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noonan View Post
Date magnification certainly looks off. Could just be the angle of the pic. And shouldn't there be gold on the clasp too??
the clasp is correct for a non solid link band, older 16613 with lug holes no gold is in the centre of the old clasp, bezel insert is aftermarket and crystal is definetely aftermarket with poor magnification. I only believe date magnification to be relevant on new watches that should 100% have an original crystal, i personally can change it myself, so this does not bother me as used watches often have aftermarket glasses, easy to fix fairly cheap and should not be the final call if the price is right imho. i would need to see the clasp and relevant pictures of the movement to be sure on this one as no real points of reference are shown in the photos with enough clarity, box is incorrect for this watch
__________________
watches many
crowncollection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 07:22 AM   #10
NKflyer
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Real Name: Richard
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noonan View Post
And shouldn't there be gold on the clasp too??
Gold through the clasp didn't start until the SEL bracelets.

I think the watch itself is genuine but with aftermarket parts. At a minimum, the bezel insert and crystal. Box and accessories do not match the vintage of the watch, of course.
NKflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 07:24 AM   #11
NKflyer
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Real Name: Richard
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowncollection View Post
the clasp is correct for a non solid link band, older 16613 with lug holes no gold is in the centre of the old clasp, bezel insert is aftermarket and crystal is definetely aftermarket with poor magnification. I only believe date magnification to be relevant on new watches that should 100% have an original crystal, i personally can change it myself, so this does not bother me as used watches often have aftermarket glasses, easy to fix fairly cheap and should not be the final call if the price is right imho. i would need to see the clasp and relevant pictures of the movement to be sure on this one as no real points of reference are shown in the photos with enough clarity
You beat me to it by less than a minute!
NKflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 07:27 AM   #12
steve-o
"TRF" Member
 
steve-o's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Real Name: Steve-O
Location: Naplis, Merlin
Watch: Blue TT Sub
Posts: 857
Magnification looks off. Compare to this one.
__________________
steve-o is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 09:04 AM   #13
GradyPhilpott
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
GradyPhilpott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: Seiko #SRK050
Posts: 34,454
Okay, this isn't the best picture of the clasp, but it's the best one on the site.

It looks iffy to me, but I don't have my Sub handy to compare the coronet, the scrolling, etc.

There's no lettering that I can see.

I added another picture and this shot looks even worse.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 618672918_o.jpg (89.3 KB, 234 views)
File Type: jpg 618672930_o.jpg (79.5 KB, 233 views)
__________________
JJ

Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner
GradyPhilpott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 09:09 AM   #14
harry in montreal
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Montreal
Watch: The Habs pick 1st!
Posts: 3,589
The logo on the band blade looks bad.
harry in montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 09:25 AM   #15
conrolex
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 21
Looks fake. Date is way too small
conrolex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 12:23 PM   #16
themast
"TRF" Member
 
themast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: US
Posts: 2,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by conrolex View Post
Looks fake. Date is way too small
Read what Crowncollection wrote... I agree the magnification is off but that is not the only thing to look at.
themast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 02:07 PM   #17
GradyPhilpott
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
GradyPhilpott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: Seiko #SRK050
Posts: 34,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by themast View Post
Read what Crowncollection wrote... I agree the magnification is off but that is not the only thing to look at.
Well, we've named several inconsistencies, not just one.

I know crown knows his stuff, but evidently the watch is not as advertised.

These are crown's own words:

Quote:
Originally Posted by crowncollection View Post
i would need to see the clasp and relevant pictures of the movement to be sure on this one as no real points of reference are shown in the photos with enough clarity, box is incorrect for this watch
We've presented the clasp, but there are no picture of the movement.

I would also note that the coronet on the crown looks suspicious, as well.

So, if for no other reason than the edification of our members, I think the matter deserves another review.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 618672953_o.jpg (60.6 KB, 191 views)
__________________
JJ

Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner
GradyPhilpott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 05:53 PM   #18
77T
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
77T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 41,960
The juice isn't worth the squeeze - eBay won't pull it because of an aftermarket crystal or bezel insert - maybe an email to the seller will get you some movement pics + pics between the lugs.
__________________


Does anyone really know what time it is?
77T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 06:28 PM   #19
joseluu
"TRF" Member
 
joseluu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Madrid (Spain)
Posts: 702
I really don´t know why this watch is getting so much latitude. Usually, a watch with an "aftermarket" crystal and an "aftermarket" insert would have been called fake. Even more when the seller does not mention it. Plus, the box is from a later period than the watch.

On top of that, the bracelet looks dubious to me.
joseluu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 06:49 PM   #20
wokafu
"TRF" Member
 
wokafu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Malaysia
Watch: SM300+14060M
Posts: 2,012
im no expert but the color looks a lil off to me...the blue looks faded and the gold is not shinny at all..
__________________
14060M SM300 PAM000 Poljot-BAIKAL G Shock
wokafu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 07:06 PM   #21
bayerische
"TRF" Member
 
bayerische's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Andreas
Location: Margaritaville
Watch: Smurf
Posts: 19,879
No good.

Lot's of things wrong.
__________________
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
bayerische is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 07:12 PM   #22
Andad
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Andad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,510
Not with a ten foot pole.
__________________
E

Andad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 07:13 PM   #23
How
"TRF" Member
 
How's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Melbourne
Watch: 16610, Tudor 1960
Posts: 1,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by NKflyer View Post
You beat me to it by less than a minute!
And you beat me to it by 12 hours!

How is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 January 2013, 11:28 PM   #24
GradyPhilpott
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
GradyPhilpott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: Seiko #SRK050
Posts: 34,454
Don't forget the watch winder warranty!
__________________
JJ

Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner
GradyPhilpott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 January 2013, 03:39 AM   #25
robertneville
"TRF" Member
 
robertneville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Greg
Location: PA
Watch: me burn
Posts: 1,435
dont like it.
__________________

Motocross is life!
robertneville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 January 2013, 03:48 AM   #26
tudorman8276
"TRF" Member
 
tudorman8276's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: STAN
Location: KY-USA
Watch: Rolex Prez
Posts: 12,583
... X - 2 ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by crowncollection View Post
the clasp is correct for a non solid link band, older 16613 with lug holes no gold is in the centre of the old clasp, bezel insert is aftermarket and crystal is definetely aftermarket with poor magnification. I only believe date magnification to be relevant on new watches that should 100% have an original crystal, i personally can change it myself, so this does not bother me as used watches often have aftermarket glasses, easy to fix fairly cheap and should not be the final call if the price is right imho. i would need to see the clasp and relevant pictures of the movement to be sure on this one as no real points of reference are shown in the photos with enough clarity, box is incorrect for this watch
tudorman8276 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 January 2013, 03:57 AM   #27
NKflyer
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Real Name: Richard
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,858
I can't believe the discussion has gone on for as long as it already has. Nobody in their right mind is going to pay $11k for it anyway. In good condition and without any questionable parts, I think you'd be looking at roughly half that amount.
NKflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 January 2013, 12:35 PM   #28
cht
2024 Pledge Member
 
cht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Chris
Location: San antonio, TX
Watch: 116610LV
Posts: 2,143
at least the movement is likely gen by looking at the hands, dial looks good.

I agree with others, aftermarket bezel insert and cheap crystal at the least.
the logo does look wrong on the clasp, but the coronet on the outside looks ok,

anyways, modded, who knows whats been done to it inside.
would only be worth 3-4k imo.
cht is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Asset Appeal

Wrist Aficionado

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches

OCWatches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.