ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

WrxOwner · 24 December 2015, 04:41 AM

I am fairly new to the watch community and am slowly building my knowledge. I saw this for sale in another watch site. I don't wanna call out the seller first since maybe I am wrong.

advertised as a 2003 16610, but the size of the lugs looks like a 116610. Experts please tell me if I am right or wrong.

RACER_X · 24 December 2015, 04:50 AM

No, the lugs are much smaller then my 116610

No rehaut engraving
And the bezel is not ceramic

sent from the batcloset in the batcave on the batphone

crowncollection · 24 December 2015, 05:20 AM

Looks normal

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Etschell · 24 December 2015, 05:21 AM

it looks like a 16610 from 2003. whether it is real or not you have to buy the seller not the watch. looks authentic but there are lots of fakes.

AbsolutelyROLEX! · 24 December 2015, 08:40 AM

Looks ok it is a 16610

kingSubTT · 24 December 2015, 10:42 AM

Something doesn't look right about this one. I would pass.

KOLKABEN · 24 December 2015, 11:49 AM

Looks nothing like the 116610 and is a 16610 for sure , Could be a Frankenstein Submariner but looks very gen compared to my 2001 16610.

WrxOwner · 25 December 2015, 05:03 AM

thanks guys. I think I was just obsessing with the Lug and was comparing it with this picture from Bernard Watch

24 December 2015, 04:41 AM	#1
WrxOwner "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Tustin/Alabang Watch: 124060 116710 Posts: 42	16610 but looks like 116610 I am fairly new to the watch community and am slowly building my knowledge. I saw this for sale in another watch site. I don't wanna call out the seller first since maybe I am wrong. advertised as a 2003 16610, but the size of the lugs looks like a 116610. Experts please tell me if I am right or wrong.

24 December 2015, 05:20 AM	#3
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,247	Looks normal Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ watches many

24 December 2015, 08:40 AM	#5
AbsolutelyROLEX! "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Real Name: Andy Location: Ontario, Canada Watch: AKA: ANDERL712000 Posts: 4,935	Looks ok it is a 16610 __________________ We want to be the first in the field and Rolex should be seen as the one and only-the best. Hans Wilsdorf, Rolex founder

24 December 2015, 10:42 AM	#6
kingSubTT "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: USA Watch: SmurfDaytonaBLNR Posts: 682	Something doesn't look right about this one. I would pass. __________________ White Daytona 116520, Sub 116619LB, GMT II BLNR

24 December 2015, 04:50 AM	#2
RACER_X "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 439	No, the lugs are much smaller then my 116610 No rehaut engraving And the bezel is not ceramic sent from the batcloset in the batcave on the batphone

24 December 2015, 05:21 AM	#4
Etschell "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: FL Watch: platinum sub Posts: 15,884	it looks like a 16610 from 2003. whether it is real or not you have to buy the seller not the watch. looks authentic but there are lots of fakes.

24 December 2015, 11:49 AM	#7
KOLKABEN "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Real Name: Colin Location: UK Watch: Rolex 16610 Sub Posts: 3	Looks nothing like the 116610 and is a 16610 for sure , Could be a Frankenstein Submariner but looks very gen compared to my 2001 16610.

25 December 2015, 05:03 AM	#8
WrxOwner "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Tustin/Alabang Watch: 124060 116710 Posts: 42	thanks guys. I think I was just obsessing with the Lug and was comparing it with this picture from Bernard Watch

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