ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

jonathon555 · 18 July 2010, 07:57 PM

Super choice & welcome, wear it with pride

Psmith · 18 July 2010, 08:36 PM

Fake

drtooth73 · 18 July 2010, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

Welcome to the forum.

Here you go, I turned the picture for you.

You almost turned his Sub into Daytona!

Adam K. · 18 July 2010, 09:05 PM

Several points, which are immediately apparent:

1) lugs are too chunky for a (now) "old" 16610 Submariner--these look more like the Supercase profile of the new 116610. If it were a 116610 Sub, on the other hand, the Cerachrom bezel would have a lot glossier of a finish than this, and WITHOUT QUESTION, the rehaut would be engraved with the RRR ring. This is irrefutable, as Rolex has been engraving the rehauts on Submariner references for some time (even prior to the new model).

2) Rolex crystals have a very distinctive profile, and this one does not appear to be correct in terms of it's bevel/finishing.

3) The SEL profile also looks fishy---it's close, but noticeably longer and of different appearance than that of the Rolex Oyster, in either old Fliplock or new Glidelock configuration.

Psmith · 18 July 2010, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam K.

Several points, which are immediately apparent:

1) lugs are too chunky for a (now) "old" 16610 Submariner--these look more like the Supercase profile of the new 116610. If it were a 116610 Sub, on the other hand, the Cerachrom bezel would have a lot glossier of a finish than this, and WITHOUT QUESTION, the rehaut would be engraved with the RRR ring. This is irrefutable, as Rolex has been engraving the rehauts on Submariner references for some time (even prior to the new model).

2) Rolex crystals have a very distinctive profile, and this one does not appear to be correct in terms of it's bevel/finishing.

3) The SEL profile also looks fishy---it's close, but noticeably longer and of different appearance than that of the Rolex Oyster, in either old Fliplock or new Glidelock configuration.

Agreed - and a few other points as well (but don't want to give the fake-makers too many clues)

Let's hope this thread disappears soon.

mcjp6 · 18 July 2010, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam K.

Several points, which are immediately apparent:

1) lugs are too chunky for a (now) "old" 16610 Submariner--these look more like the Supercase profile of the new 116610. If it were a 116610 Sub, on the other hand, the Cerachrom bezel would have a lot glossier of a finish than this, and WITHOUT QUESTION, the rehaut would be engraved with the RRR ring. This is irrefutable, as Rolex has been engraving the rehauts on Submariner references for some time (even prior to the new model).

2) Rolex crystals have a very distinctive profile, and this one does not appear to be correct in terms of it's bevel/finishing.

3) The SEL profile also looks fishy---it's close, but noticeably longer and of different appearance than that of the Rolex Oyster, in either old Fliplock or new Glidelock configuration.

Adam, Spot observations, IMO....

1stTimeOwner · 19 July 2010, 04:59 AM

DING DING DING DING

We have a winner!

You guys are good! It is indeed as fake as they come, I am a real rolex owner and a member of this forum by another name but I wanted to see who if any would catch this fake that I was told could pass any inspection.

Thank you guys for making me some $$$$$, I bet that someone would catch it, my friend said ya'll wouldnt!

I knew I could count on ya'll

WELL DONE!

Idle Swede · 19 July 2010, 05:02 AM

[QUOTE=1stTimeOwner;1943669]DING DING DING DING.

We have a winner!

You guys are good! It is indeed as fake as they come, I am a real rolex owner and a member of this forum by another name but I wanted to see who if any would catch this fake that I was told could pass any inspection.

Thank you guys for making me some $$$$$, I bet that someone would catch it, my friend said ya'll wouldnt!

I guess it's time to say goodby to both of you.

ROGERB · 19 July 2010, 05:05 AM

Well you just saved me a private message

R

Gerardus · 19 July 2010, 05:08 AM

Welcome and a very good choice!

youngr · 19 July 2010, 06:02 AM

Nice congrats, thats a classic watch

datejust1 · 19 July 2010, 06:04 AM

I pm'ed TTG when I saw this... The Dial was just eww

Ebruner · 19 July 2010, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1stTimeOwner

DING DING DING DING

We have a winner!

You guys are good! It is indeed as fake as they come, I am a real rolex owner and a member of this forum by another name but I wanted to see who if any would catch this fake that I was told could pass any inspection.

Thank you guys for making me some $$$$$, I bet that someone would catch it, my friend said ya'll wouldnt!

I knew I could count on ya'll

WELL DONE!

That's not something that is NOT allowed!!! Bad form anyway.

-Eddie

mike · 19 July 2010, 07:57 AM

He's gone and we'll kill the IP.

scl6118 · 19 July 2010, 01:31 PM

Good choice!

javentura · 19 July 2010, 01:43 PM

Nice choice.

18 July 2010, 08:36 PM	#32
Psmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Clive Location: Exoplanet Watch: spring-driven Posts: 38,856	Fake __________________

18 July 2010, 09:05 PM	#34
Adam K. Banned Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: WA Watch: All the Oysters Posts: 811	Hate to be a spoil-sport, but it looks like a relatively well-done counterfeit. Several points, which are immediately apparent: 1) lugs are too chunky for a (now) "old" 16610 Submariner--these look more like the Supercase profile of the new 116610. If it were a 116610 Sub, on the other hand, the Cerachrom bezel would have a lot glossier of a finish than this, and WITHOUT QUESTION, the rehaut would be engraved with the RRR ring. This is irrefutable, as Rolex has been engraving the rehauts on Submariner references for some time (even prior to the new model). 2) Rolex crystals have a very distinctive profile, and this one does not appear to be correct in terms of it's bevel/finishing. 3) The SEL profile also looks fishy---it's close, but noticeably longer and of different appearance than that of the Rolex Oyster, in either old Fliplock or new Glidelock configuration.

19 July 2010, 05:08 AM	#40
Gerardus "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: Gerardus Location: often in the air Watch: ♕ Posts: 12,129	Welcome and a very good choice! __________________ ♕126610 ♕126333 ♕116300

19 July 2010, 06:02 AM	#41
youngr "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Richard Location: England Watch: 16610 & 16710 Posts: 899	Nice congrats, thats a classic watch __________________ SS Submariner Date "V" SS GMT Master II Pepsi "D"

19 July 2010, 01:31 PM	#45
scl6118 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Shawn Location: United States Watch: SS GMT IIC Posts: 1,624	Good choice! __________________ Current: SS GMT IIC Former: Panerai 114 Former: Breitling Hercules :

18 July 2010, 07:57 PM	#31
jonathon555 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: UK Posts: 582	Super choice & welcome, wear it with pride

19 July 2010, 04:59 AM	#37
1stTimeOwner "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: USA Posts: 3	DING DING DING DING We have a winner! You guys are good! It is indeed as fake as they come, I am a real rolex owner and a member of this forum by another name but I wanted to see who if any would catch this fake that I was told could pass any inspection. Thank you guys for making me some $$$$$, I bet that someone would catch it, my friend said ya'll wouldnt! I knew I could count on ya'll WELL DONE!

19 July 2010, 05:02 AM	#38
Idle Swede Suspended Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Leo Location: Boca Raton Posts: 13,820	[QUOTE=1stTimeOwner;1943669]DING DING DING DING. We have a winner! You guys are good! It is indeed as fake as they come, I am a real rolex owner and a member of this forum by another name but I wanted to see who if any would catch this fake that I was told could pass any inspection. Thank you guys for making me some $$$$$, I bet that someone would catch it, my friend said ya'll wouldnt! I guess it's time to say goodby to both of you.

19 July 2010, 05:05 AM	#39
ROGERB "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Roger Location: WHITE ROCK BC Watch: 89 16610, 57 7914, Posts: 897	Well you just saved me a private message R

19 July 2010, 06:04 AM	#42
datejust1 Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: G Location: N/A Watch: N/A Posts: 6,042	I pm'ed TTG when I saw this... The Dial was just eww

19 July 2010, 07:57 AM	#44
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	He's gone and we'll kill the IP.

19 July 2010, 01:43 PM	#46
javentura Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: USA Watch: PAM111 Posts: 16	Nice choice.

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