Legit Check 70s Datejust

[Levi8696]

Hey everyone, new to the forum. I’ve previously owned a Datejust and regretfully had to sell it. Now I have the opportunity to purchase another, could you help authenticate it for me?

[Brianp]

Looks sketchy to me. For starters, the cyclops/date magnification is all wrong. Dial printing also looks bad though it's hard to tell from your photos. Avoid.

[ReclinerTimer]

I'm no authenticity authority, but I own a 70's datejust and something about this bezel and date window seem off

[Floorguy]

That 40+ year sticker looks in pretty good shape!!

[Levi8696]

Yea the date window and sticker were what was throwing me off the most

[CNDguy]

Originally Posted by Floorguy

That 40+ year sticker looks in pretty good shape!!

Haha yes not to mention it’s the wrong reference number!

[CNDguy]

Magnification looks off too.
I dunno though, could all be perfectly fine for all I know. I am no authority on real/fake

[Richard Carver]

It's a fake, dial, date, magnification, no case holes, 16233 is a two tone. Bezel too thick and crown is wrong.

[Brew]

Yeah, but other than that . . . .

[Floorguy]

Originally Posted by CNDguy

Haha yes not to mention it’s the wrong reference number!

wow! I’m slipping! Just look at my avatar!

[crewsin]

Date magnification doesn't look strong enough and the bezel looks too wide? Don't quote me on that. Also, are they offering it to you for "50 bucks right now!"?

[mrs_LA]

Fake. Dial is fake, looks like a terrible print. No cyclops. Bracelet has 6 micro adjustments on clasp (genuine has 7)
Run away!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TK116710]

I'm no expert... but the date window looks horrible to me. My understanding is that Rolex has always maintained the same magnification on the cyclops and this certainly isn't even close to being in line with the ones I've seen. Happy to be proven wrong, but this immediately jumped out to me.

The seemingly brand new sticker on the case back would also be a big red flag for me.

[aasubo]

Run, Forrest, run!!!!

[DP63]

Dial ... how clean it was made me look closer (no patina on the tritium), the coronet at 12 made me look again (seems to touch minute 59 compared with gap at minute 1), the crown is too big, the case has no lug holes and the cyclops doesnt look like it is actually magnifying in the pics .... it just look's wrong at a first glance to me.

Keep your money.

[Onikage]

Everything checks out. It's a complete pile of worthless crap.

[HogwldFLTR]

Isn't that a sapphire lens; should be a thicker acrylic one.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Isn't that a sapphire lens; should be a thicker acrylic one.

Probably mineral crystal.

[Andad]

Ok, ok, I’ll pass on that one.

[crowncollection]

Fake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lyktestolpe]

Fake, no doubt.

[DoDe]

Somethings wrong with your story OP. If you "previously owned a Datejust" you should be able to tell that this one is fake. Unless your previous Datejust was something else than a Rolex.

[cajunron]

Originally Posted by DoDe

Somethings wrong with your story OP. If you "previously owned a Datejust" you should be able to tell that this one is fake. Unless your previous Datejust was something else than a Rolex.

Yeah, once you own a Rolex, you can quickly tell the inferior quality of a counterfeit. And the watch in the picture is bad enough for a blind man to tell, IMO.