Real? 116500LN Daytona

[antrolexsub]

Dial is off centre a fraction. Not uncommon.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by CorradoBrit

Not a rotation as some sections look OK.

“Rotation “?
What you mean, it’s solid and fixed. ? It cannot rotate

[antrolexsub]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

“Rotation “?
What you mean, it’s solid and fixed. ? It cannot rotate

The movement can be turned in the case a fraction, thus lining the dial up to the rehaut etchings.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by antrolexsub

The movement can be turned in the case a fraction, thus lining the dial up to the rehaut etchings.

Possible. But the rehaut can not be moved.
And if dial is off a fraction all markers would be out the same amount

[antrolexsub]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

Possible. But the rehaut can not be moved.
And if dial is off a fraction all markers would be out the same amount

I never said it could be. They are all out by the same amount. Rotate the movement/dial = problem solved. I’ve done it countless times.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by antrolexsub

I never said it could be. They are all out by the same amount. Rotate the movement/dial = problem solved. I’ve done it countless times.

Agreed. Just ensuring no one thinks the rehaut can be moved.
And fact that moving dial is by a tiny fraction (mm) not m meters

[CorradoBrit]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

“Rotation “?
What you mean, it’s solid and fixed. ? It cannot rotate

I didn't say there was a rotation. The misalignment isn't consistent round the dial which you'd expect if the movement/dial were rotated in the case. Look at the 'X' at 59 and 15. Out of alignment in the former aligned in the latter. Maybe its the photos. OP, what do you see with the watch in hand?

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by CorradoBrit

I didn't say there was a rotation. The misalignment isn't consistent round the dial which you'd expect if the movement/dial were rotated in the case. Look at the 'X' at 59 and 15. Out of alignment in the former aligned in the latter. Maybe its the photos. OP, what do you see with the watch in hand?

Ah. Ok understand.
As I say in my opinion impossible to truly authenticate from those photos

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

And with a disagreement among the experts, the double echo chamber bears repeating: 1. buy the seller; and 2. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is only one true "expert" commenting on this thread, and he said it's authentic. OP enjoy your new watch......

[RoscoPico]

I hate to say it, but I wonder if those replica watch guys have an eye for this. It's just sad to me that these watches infiltrate the market.
How about a movement shot ? I've had watches pass a visual inspection but not upon movement inspection - ah the trials and tribulations of the gray market.

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by RoscoPico

I hate to say it, but I wonder if those replica watch guys have an eye for this. It's just sad to me that these watches infiltrate the market.
How about a movement shot ? I've had watches pass a visual inspection but not upon movement inspection - ah the trials and tribulations of the gray market.

Please note that they have been able to clone the Rolex 4130. There are many replicas around that not only can pass a visual inspection ma also the movement inspection, as they are so good that you can replace the whole balance assembly with an original one.

[Peemaster]

This watch is definitely Gen. Reasons:
- correct “Daytona” font and color. ARF / Noob superreplicas are off on the Daytona letters
- perfect SEL spacing
- Rehaut engraving. Superreps are not able to copy that correctly as of now
- Stickers are gen Rolex. Rep stickers are always clumsy