ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Puffin · 22 January 2016, 03:30 PM

Hi all, just wanting to know your opinion on the cyclops lense on this watch as it seems too small to me.

Thanks!

crowncollection · 22 January 2016, 04:04 PM

Yes it appears low

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Puffin · 22 January 2016, 04:24 PM

I was reading recently about a large amount of models having a lower magnification. Would you consider this to fall into that general category or does this appear to be fake?

Thank you for your response!

j stuff · 22 January 2016, 08:32 PM

The watch looks fine. Low mag is due to a crappy aftermarket replacement crystal. Extremely common. Genuine Rolex date mag is 2.5x and really pops out at you.

Puffin · 23 January 2016, 12:52 AM

Thanks again for the reply, simply worried because I've already purchased but still have time to return if it's fake. Would sending it in to Rolex for a replacement crystal be a logical choice? I'd post a few more pictures if I was smart enough to figure how to link them in.

Thanks again!

AbsolutelyROLEX! · 23 January 2016, 01:41 AM

You guys sure thats real?

Knappo 1307 · 23 January 2016, 01:57 AM

Need way better pictures...

Puffin · 23 January 2016, 03:01 AM

[URL="http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s480/gvanheest1/IMG_0960_zpsye0uowgq.jpg"]

http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/...psr8xm4qde.jpg

Not sure if this is the correct way to add pictures, but there's a picture of the markings on the clasp and what I perceive to be a better picture of the face.

Thanks!

teqp · 23 January 2016, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderl712000

You guys sure thats real?

I thought the same, but waited for more knowledgeable folks to chime in. That rehaut looks a little off. But as Knappo said, need better pics.

Puffin · 23 January 2016, 03:22 AM

Not sure if previous post with multiple photos got through, trying again with this one.

rolex_DateJust · 23 January 2016, 04:15 AM

From that angle the rehaut looks a little off

GB-man · 23 January 2016, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

Need way better pictures...

Indeed. And when pictures are this bad it's often fake.

Then again rolex is notoriously having cyclops QC issues. Not sure if fakers make such mistakes

crowncollection · 23 January 2016, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderl712000

You guys sure thats real?

No not 100% I just commented on the cyclops as he requested pics are too poor for anything else

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

locutus49 · 23 January 2016, 07:00 AM

The date is definitely too small. Fake? I don't know.

Dashimmy · 23 January 2016, 10:14 AM

I would find a local Pro, buy him lunch, and ask them about this watch.

Puffin · 23 January 2016, 11:31 AM

As an additional bit this was bought from a highly trusted seller on this forum.

T. Ferguson · 23 January 2016, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crowncollection

Yes it appears low

Yeah, even for Rolex.

Old Expat Beast · 23 January 2016, 01:45 PM

Can you post a link to the original sales listing?

Puffin · 24 January 2016, 03:53 AM

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...ghlight=116234

This is the thread with the same pictures posted on his website (davidsw.com), the date looks significantly better in these pictures maybe due to the fact that it is a better camera and the shots are closer. Although of relatively no significance the hangtag-ish item is green rather than red. I didn't doubt the authenticity buying from this seller and I am by no means trying to bash him or claim it's a fake just looking for opinions on if I should return it while I can still get my money back.

Thanks again, I can post pictures of the order confirmation if necessary.

EddyG · 24 January 2016, 04:35 AM

Id say fake, Rehaut looks too deep and the wrong angle

hammer34 · 24 January 2016, 06:53 AM

No chance its a fake if its come from Davidsw

goldfixer21 · 24 January 2016, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EddyG

Id say fake, Rehaut looks too deep and the wrong angle

David would NEVER sell a fake, to even suggest he would is ridiculous

GB-man · 24 January 2016, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puffin

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...ghlight=116234

This is the thread with the same pictures posted on his website (davidsw.com), the date looks significantly better in these pictures maybe due to the fact that it is a better camera and the shots are closer. Although of relatively no significance the hangtag-ish item is green rather than red. I didn't doubt the authenticity buying from this seller and I am by no means trying to bash him or claim it's a fake just looking for opinions on if I should return it while I can still get my money back.

Thanks again, I can post pictures of the order confirmation if necessary.

in that case it's just another one of rolex small date cyclops. Take it to rsc and ask politely if they would consider swapping it out.

dera · 24 January 2016, 11:07 PM

I don't think there's any chance that watch is the same watch as in DSW's pictures.
That difference is so massive there's no way it's just because of camera angle or perspective.

RSC should service it w/o any issues though, as long as it's still under warranty (it's pre-7/15 so only has the shorter warranty). And I don't think even RSC can say that's "within spec".

mjclark32 · 24 January 2016, 11:15 PM

Doesn't look like same watch. I've bought two or three from David and they're always as described. If I had to choose to believe you or him, well sorry. You lose.

artschool · 25 January 2016, 12:02 AM

this is a puzzle.

bdex75 · 25 January 2016, 12:10 AM

I am with Clark and artshool.

I would love to see the two serial numbers. Looks like a different watch. That being said a lot of the mag is dependent on lighting and angle. But your pictures are not good enough to really see anything If you bought that watch from that listing than it is genuine. David would never pass off a non genuine watch. And the mag in his pics look fine, as always.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WhatTheDeuce · 25 January 2016, 12:12 AM

Weird. Looks like "SWISS" is closer to the VI marker in your picture compared to David's picture. Would help with sharper pictures.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

mapalfa · 25 January 2016, 12:14 AM

Do these screen grabs help?

http://s1053.photobucket.com/user/gv...v23tm.png.html

http://s1053.photobucket.com/user/gv...gymjr.png.html

Old Expat Beast · 25 January 2016, 12:45 AM

Can you show the warranty card? It should be the same one as in the ad listing. Thanks.

22 January 2016, 04:04 PM	#2
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,216	Yes it appears low Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ watches many

23 January 2016, 01:41 AM	#6
AbsolutelyROLEX! "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Real Name: Andy Location: Ontario, Canada Watch: AKA: ANDERL712000 Posts: 4,935	You guys sure thats real? __________________ 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

23 January 2016, 04:15 AM	#11
rolex_DateJust 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Real Name: Sergio Location: Miami, FL Watch: Yes please! Posts: 1,781	From that angle the rehaut looks a little off __________________ ♛ 126610LV ♛ 16220 Salmon ♛ 126713GRNR ♛ 18238 Ω Speedmaster Moonwatch

24 January 2016, 11:15 PM	#25
mjclark32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: MJC Location: PHL USA Watch: IWC, Rolex, AP Posts: 29,232	Doesn't look like same watch. I've bought two or three from David and they're always as described. If I had to choose to believe you or him, well sorry. You lose. __________________

25 January 2016, 12:10 AM	#27
bdex75 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Real Name: Brandon Location: Indianapolis Watch: my money vanish Posts: 8,506	Magnification too low? I am with Clark and artshool. I would love to see the two serial numbers. Looks like a different watch. That being said a lot of the mag is dependent on lighting and angle. But your pictures are not good enough to really see anything If you bought that watch from that listing than it is genuine. David would never pass off a non genuine watch. And the mag in his pics look fine, as always. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

22 January 2016, 04:24 PM	#3
Puffin "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: California Posts: 16	I was reading recently about a large amount of models having a lower magnification. Would you consider this to fall into that general category or does this appear to be fake? Thank you for your response!

22 January 2016, 08:32 PM	#4
j stuff "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 9	The watch looks fine. Low mag is due to a crappy aftermarket replacement crystal. Extremely common. Genuine Rolex date mag is 2.5x and really pops out at you.

23 January 2016, 12:52 AM	#5
Puffin "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: California Posts: 16	Thanks again for the reply, simply worried because I've already purchased but still have time to return if it's fake. Would sending it in to Rolex for a replacement crystal be a logical choice? I'd post a few more pictures if I was smart enough to figure how to link them in. Thanks again!

23 January 2016, 01:57 AM	#7
Knappo 1307 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: Jason Location: USA Watch: Sea Dweller Posts: 8,561	Need way better pictures...

23 January 2016, 03:01 AM	#8
Puffin "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: California Posts: 16	[URL="http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s480/gvanheest1/IMG_0960_zpsye0uowgq.jpg"] http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/...psr8xm4qde.jpg Not sure if this is the correct way to add pictures, but there's a picture of the markings on the clasp and what I perceive to be a better picture of the face. Thanks!

23 January 2016, 03:22 AM	#10
Puffin "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: California Posts: 16	Not sure if previous post with multiple photos got through, trying again with this one.

23 January 2016, 07:00 AM	#14
locutus49 Banned Join Date: May 2014 Real Name: John Location: La Jolla, CA Watch: Platona Posts: 12,194	The date is definitely too small. Fake? I don't know.

23 January 2016, 10:14 AM	#15
Dashimmy "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Real Name: Heath Location: Elkton Ky Watch: Submariner Posts: 354	I would find a local Pro, buy him lunch, and ask them about this watch.

23 January 2016, 11:31 AM	#16
Puffin "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: California Posts: 16	As an additional bit this was bought from a highly trusted seller on this forum.

23 January 2016, 01:45 PM	#18
Old Expat Beast TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Adam Location: Far East Watch: Golden Tuna Posts: 28,803	Can you post a link to the original sales listing?

24 January 2016, 03:53 AM	#19
Puffin "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: California Posts: 16	http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...ghlight=116234 This is the thread with the same pictures posted on his website (davidsw.com), the date looks significantly better in these pictures maybe due to the fact that it is a better camera and the shots are closer. Although of relatively no significance the hangtag-ish item is green rather than red. I didn't doubt the authenticity buying from this seller and I am by no means trying to bash him or claim it's a fake just looking for opinions on if I should return it while I can still get my money back. Thanks again, I can post pictures of the order confirmation if necessary.

24 January 2016, 04:35 AM	#20
EddyG "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Real Name: Eddy Location: Kent [London UK] Watch: 16628 Yachtmaster Posts: 378	Id say fake, Rehaut looks too deep and the wrong angle

24 January 2016, 06:53 AM	#21
hammer34 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Real Name: Mick Location: london Watch: 16710 coke Posts: 27	No chance its a fake if its come from Davidsw

24 January 2016, 11:07 PM	#24
dera "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 1,372	I don't think there's any chance that watch is the same watch as in DSW's pictures. That difference is so massive there's no way it's just because of camera angle or perspective. RSC should service it w/o any issues though, as long as it's still under warranty (it's pre-7/15 so only has the shorter warranty). And I don't think even RSC can say that's "within spec".

25 January 2016, 12:02 AM	#26
artschool "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: uk Posts: 1,215	this is a puzzle.

25 January 2016, 12:12 AM	#28
WhatTheDeuce "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Real Name: Kyung Location: Anywhere? Watch: cha want... Posts: 4,488	Weird. Looks like "SWISS" is closer to the VI marker in your picture compared to David's picture. Would help with sharper pictures. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk __________________ Instagram: @whatthedeuce_

25 January 2016, 12:14 AM	#29
mapalfa "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Real Name: Robin Location: West Wales Watch: ing the grass grow Posts: 571	Do these screen grabs help? http://s1053.photobucket.com/user/gv...v23tm.png.html http://s1053.photobucket.com/user/gv...gymjr.png.html

25 January 2016, 12:45 AM	#30
Old Expat Beast TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Adam Location: Far East Watch: Golden Tuna Posts: 28,803	Can you show the warranty card? It should be the same one as in the ad listing. Thanks.

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