Anyone Want to Weigh in on This Sub?

[GradyPhilpott]

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

[toph]

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

[joseluu]

Originally Posted by toph

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.

[Noonan]

Date magnification certainly looks off. Could just be the angle of the pic. And shouldn't there be gold on the clasp too??

[lebowski321]

Originally Posted by Noonan

Date magnification certainly looks off.

x2

[cajunron]

Pearl surround, date font (date disc), date mag look suspect, IMO.

[joseluu]

The best thing is the warranty card of the watch winder!!!

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by joseluu

The best thing is the warranty card of the watch winder!!!

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

[crowncollection]

Originally Posted by Noonan

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

[NKflyer]

Originally Posted by Noonan

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]

Originally Posted by crowncollection

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!

[steve-o]

Magnification looks off. Compare to this one.

[GradyPhilpott]

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.

[harry in montreal]

The logo on the band blade looks bad.

[conrolex]

Looks fake. Date is way too small

[themast]

Originally Posted by conrolex

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.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by themast

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:

Originally Posted by crowncollection

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.

[77T]

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.

[joseluu]

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.

[wokafu]

im no expert but the color looks a lil off to me...the blue looks faded and the gold is not shinny at all..

[bayerische]

No good.

Lot's of things wrong.

[Andad]

Not with a ten foot pole.

[How]

Originally Posted by NKflyer

You beat me to it by less than a minute!

And you beat me to it by 12 hours!

[GradyPhilpott]

Don't forget the watch winder warranty!

[robertneville]

dont like it.

[tudorman8276]

Originally Posted by crowncollection

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

[NKflyer]

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.

[cht]

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.