Orchi's threaded GMT 1675 is back

[springer]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ROLEX-1675-VINTA...1%7C240%3A1318

I see this 1675 GMT was relisted this time without any pics of the serinal number or other lug markings. I don't want to re-hash the previous thread on this watch by Orchi, but, for those that missed it, and before you salivate all over this watch, the case appears to be counterfeit and is not a genuine case based on the lug stampings from the previous time it was listed.

Buy at your own risk.

[shaggy]

it has pictures of the serial between the lugs are these not right then?

[springer]

Originally Posted by shaggy

it has pictures of the serial between the lugs are these not right then?

Yes sir, there they are again. A good photo of the stampings, same as last time.

[onkyo]

John,

If I remember correctly, the seller previously called this watch NOS which they are not doing this time around.

In reality, this watch was worn/beaten up enough to go through a case.

I would avoid this watch and seller.

[tudorman8276]

Originally Posted by springer

http://cgi.ebay.com/ROLEX-1675-VINTA...1%7C240%3A1318

I see this 1675 GMT was relisted this time without any pics of the serinal number or other lug markings. I don't want to re-hash the previous thread on this watch by Orchi, but, for those that missed it, and before you salivate all over this watch, the case appears to be counterfeit and is not a genuine case based on the lug stampings from the previous time it was listed.

Buy at your own risk.

...RSC NY svc paper that bears that SN.

...unless RSC NYC got it wrong, this is straight.

Stan.

[greekbum]

I have followed this auction and the previous thread.My question to Orchi here is what do you think about the Rolex svc paper? Did they get fooled? or is it real?What is the watch hiding/covering on the svc paper?The case looks brand new to me too.

[jeff hess]

Good questions all. Did Rolex get it wrong? I suppose it could happen. if not this fellow is owed an apology. Mr. springer said of this watch "That case is not from Rolex in my opinion, but probably from the forbidden website" and looks like a "repop or counterfeit".

Perhaps rolex was wrong or perhaps some folks at this forum jumped the gun and besmirched this seller.

If this watch is straight, then the sellers only sin on his previous auction was his obvious hyperbole about condition...a problem I encounter in every vintage watch shop I visit!

Orchi? Springer?

Is Lady Gaspar going to apologize to this guy or are we now to not believe Rolex FS papers? Which one?
Jeff

Of course it is not really Lady Gaspar's fault but the "trusted reporters" fault. (unless Rolex is the problem here. (Or perhaps they are faked up papers?) hmmmmmm

[Terry Newton]

The watch is hiding where it has the reported; "Watch Condition" under the watch. Something still smells bad about this sale and seller.

Terry Newton

[jeff hess]

With great respect, why do say this Terry?

[greekbum]

I have been following this section ever since 1 of my auctions got taken down because someone said the bezel insert on my watch was not AUTHENTIC rolex even though it was original to the watch, over 20 years old and faded badly.Since then I have come to appreciate the good work in this section.Some here are extremeley knowledgable while others dont know what they think they know.I think this is the best example of chicken yet. Many have called foul here and I am of the opinion that the case is not the original one myself.But being a buyer and seller of watches on ebay myself if I dont like something I dont bid on it. But I am not Rolex and to be 100% sure I would leave the final say on thier products to them.This fellow has papers from Rolex that look legit.If the people on this forum can get ebay to pull auctions based on their trained eye can they call Rolex NYC and have there expert trained eyes look at the pictures carefully along with the svc paper and post there remarks here for all to see?This should be easy and if those that spotted this are right and Rolex made a big mistake should at the least be rewarded in some way by Rolex.If they are wrong then what?I for one dont think the case is real and would not bid on it.Jeff with all your connections in the Rolex world what do you think?

[Terry Newton]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

With great respect, why do say this Terry?

What is the watch covering up on both pictures? Why does the watch have to be in the same place on both photos where it says; "Watch Condition?"

That's why I made the comment. If he would post a picture of the area where the watch is sitting it may allay a lot of suspicion.

Why are we always accused of slandering when we just want to see the facts?

Terry Newton

[greekbum]

Terry,
I asked the question on the watch covering the svc paper.I did not know what it said there.I think the seller did the right thing and brought the watch to Rolex.As a seller if I could do this for all my watches it would help my auctions out but I dont live in NY.

[jeff hess]

GB,
I think this forum has the best experts on the planet as to modern (post1987) Rolex. Bar none. I love this forum and think it has the biggest potential of any forum out there.

But on vintage, many on this forum are severely lacking.

I think many on this forum jump the gun and take down many good vintage watches for very weak reasons. (as we have seen on several occasions)

I love reading the debates on here and have learned a LOT about modern rolex on this forum. But before taking down a vintage watch for reasons like simple and genuine restorative actions, the debates should be a bit longer.

And yes, Rolex COULD have made a mistake.

Jeff

[jeff hess]

Terry,

The papers do not appear to be hiding anything.

Take a look.

Mr. springer said the watch was likely a counterfeit or a repop.

I would like to see this watch taken to another service center to see if Mr. Springer was correct. Again, Rolex "could" have made a mistake.

Jeff

[Mr.Charles]

Although the seller provides pictures of service paperwork from Rolex NYC, ponder this... in the pictures before the service paperwork, the date "26" contains a closed loop "6," which is found in modern Rolex time pieces. In the pictures following the service paperwork including the ones that include the watch, the date is "29," BUT the "9" is open loop. Correct me if I am wrong, but circa 1970's calendars featured open loop "6" and "9." I seriously doubt that the watch calendar contains two different number fonts and that it is the same watch that is being sold versus the one that was serviced/authenticated.

[djdynod]

Guys you have to face it, if the ROLEX made a "Mistake" in authenticating this watch then what are we discussing here? People who deal with things like ROLEX on their daily/hourly basis, don't make mistakes like that. If this Rolex was in ANY way altered in the past or not in any way original, RSC would have never gave it a green light....and go on with the servicing the watch especially NYC...so don't judge a book by it's cover...

[yiannis]

This is not the first time that this seller sells Rolex watches with cases (non original) replacements! Everybody be aware of this. also about this specific watch I believe that dial is redone... Check carefully the way the "Swiss-T<25" is written and not only.... also the endlinks from bracelet dont feet as they must on the case.... I have 2 watches like this, same old, and the difference is huge.. I wonder for the daytona he also sells...

[jeff hess]

Yiannis,

If this seller is selling Rolexes with fake papers or if rolex has made a mistake on TWO watches that the gent has, then we are all doomed as collectors.

What problem do you have with the Daytona other than a wheel or two has been replaced with a facory replacement at some point?

Do Orchi (who by the way was measured and careful in his analysis of the 1675) and springer (who hates anyone who sells 1675's on ebay) know more about vintage than Rolex?

Does this seller have an "in" with Rolex of some kind? Is Rolex mistaken about these two Rolexes? Should we now be skeptical of rolex repair papers?

Guys, vintage watches that have been preserved with genuine parts are perfectly acceptable in the vintage marketplace. Unlike modern pieces that have been frankenwatched with non genuine parts.

Jeff

[greekbum]

The pictures are as clear as they can be and the papers are to so the facts are all there.This is the watch out section is it not.I personally would pass but I mean no harm to the seller he sells watches and looks like he has done the right thing by taking the watch to Rolex.Unless someone here can bring in an expert from Rolex to look at the pics etc and give his final say so there is nothing more to say.


On another note.The forbidden website that springer mentions has watches and parts that I think could fool even an expert you be the judge.
Like the saying says if in doubt walk out. You dont have to bid if you dont like it.
And as a seller what else can he do to prove his watch is legit for the few here that dont like it?

[yiannis]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Yiannis,

If this seller is selling Rolexes with fake papers or if rolex has made a mistake on TWO watches that the gent has, then we are all doomed as collectors.

What problem do you have with the Daytona other than a wheel or two has been replaced with a facory replacement at some point?

Do Orchi (who by the way was measured and careful in his analysis of the 1675) and springer (who hates anyone who sells 1675's on ebay) know more about vintage than Rolex?

Does this seller have an "in" with Rolex of some kind? Is Rolex mistaken about these two Rolexes? Should we now be skeptical of rolex repair papers?

Guys, vintage watches that have been preserved with genuine parts are perfectly acceptable in the vintage marketplace. Unlike modern pieces that have been frankenwatched with non genuine parts.

Jeff

Once my mother told me this to protect me from traps in life:
'in some cases do not trust even your ass!..."
about this seller, RSC, Fake sellers with franken watches, etc:
Are you sure that those papers are original? I am not. In this specific watch especially I am 1000% sure that has a fake replacement case. Sometimes fakes are so well made to cheet all of us. And yes, many times, many collectors, even from big auction houses, had been cheeted. And thats official from RSCs too... I will give you an example: recently I bought (because I really like it, against others in the forum who don't) a Pro-hunter GMT IIc. Because seller told me that the watch was made like this straight from Rolex and that even Rolex is amazed from the results of his idea,
I took to the Rsc here in Athens and they were surprised that they never heard of this watch.... after a research they found out more...
anyway, to our theme, and about the Daytona, unfortunately I am not so
in to it with Daytonas, it is my dream watch but I am not an expert on them. I just think that ther is something wrong. He also has a Red submariner which I can see that is very good and clear.
As about Orchi's or whoever's opinion I am opened, I use to look, listen, and learn, and I feel happy and lucky that I will have more sourses to protect me and make my knoledge even bigger..
thats all, Thanks

[onkyo]

Seller must be reading this thread...... or something.

There is now a photo of the service paper without the watch on top.

I still think the case is no good (despite papers) and I would personally avoid that watch.

[springer]

If you like the watch and think it is legit ...buy it. If you you are concerned about the case being a re-pop...leave it where it is. Based on the photos, and other factors mentioned in this listing and previous listings I wouldn't touch it. That is all I am saying on this watch. Watchout.

[springer]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Yiannis,

If this seller is selling Rolexes with fake papers or if rolex has made a mistake on TWO watches that the gent has, then we are all doomed as collectors.

What problem do you have with the Daytona other than a wheel or two has been replaced with a facory replacement at some point?

Do Orchi (who by the way was measured and careful in his analysis of the 1675) and springer (who hates anyone who sells 1675's on ebay) know more about vintage than Rolex?

Does this seller have an "in" with Rolex of some kind? Is Rolex mistaken about these two Rolexes? Should we now be skeptical of rolex repair papers?

Guys, vintage watches that have been preserved with genuine parts are perfectly acceptable in the vintage marketplace. Unlike modern pieces that have been frankenwatched with non genuine parts.

Jeff

springer (who hates anyone who sells 1675's on ebay)

I think your personal attacks on me are totally uncalled for and baseless. Stick to the facts please, as your attacks to my character are really inappropriate here.

[springer]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

GB,
I think this forum has the best experts on the planet as to modern (post1987) Rolex. Bar none. I love this forum and think it has the biggest potential of any forum out there.

But on vintage, many on this forum are severely lacking.

I think many on this forum jump the gun and take down many good vintage watches for very weak reasons. (as we have seen on several occasions)

I love reading the debates on here and have learned a LOT about modern rolex on this forum. But before taking down a vintage watch for reasons like simple and genuine restorative actions, the debates should be a bit longer.

And yes, Rolex COULD have made a mistake.

Jeff

I think many on this forum jump the gun and take down many good vintage watches for very weak reasons. (as we have seen on several occasions)


Mr. Hess, would you please help us all out and start your own thread concerning all the vintage watches "taken down for weak reasons" by members here on the forum. I, for one, am interested to see these watches as that is not the intent on anyone here on the forum. I believe you have directly or indirectly voiced this opinion in the past; so take some time with your own post to address this matter as it evidently is bothering you.

[Orchi]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Yiannis,

If this seller is selling Rolexes with fake papers or if rolex has made a mistake on TWO watches that the gent has, then we are all doomed as collectors.

What problem do you have with the Daytona other than a wheel or two has been replaced with a facory replacement at some point?

Do Orchi (who by the way was measured and careful in his analysis of the 1675) and springer (who hates anyone who sells 1675's on ebay) know more about vintage than Rolex?

Does this seller have an "in" with Rolex of some kind? Is Rolex mistaken about these two Rolexes? Should we now be skeptical of rolex repair papers?

Guys, vintage watches that have been preserved with genuine parts are perfectly acceptable in the vintage marketplace. Unlike modern pieces that have been frankenwatched with non genuine parts. Jeff

Err buddy Springer...please take it easy from now...

Orchi wishes for buddy Jeff to remain in this thread...err...
for obvious reasons...

Anyway...damn this Old Pentium 1 that Orchi is using n the lousy internet
Dial-Up access that the PC has...Orchi won't be able to get to this
thread as quickly as Orchi would have wishes for...

But Orchi is certain...buddy Jeff has the necessary patience to wait for
Orchi's response...which shall be forthcoming ASAP...

Bye for now...! Orchi shall be back...soon.

[yiannis]

Jeff, as I really want to keep things calm I just want to tell you this about the 2 cases (GMT & Daytona): They both look (especially the GMT!) so brand new and they do not have even a scratch between the lugs as they had to because of bracelet's end-pieces. Usually all watches on this age have some marks, scratches, you know what I mean. Also please make a research for rolex case replacements through Google and you will be surprised of what you will find! After that you will agree with the rest...
And I will close this by telling that at least me I am not someone that throughs stones to others just because. And the only thing I know is that I know nothing.... I hope you understand what I mean..

[Orchi]

Err buddies...while hoping that Buddy Springer has instead scramble to
make a Dry Martini for himself...before scrambling back in front of his
PC(which must be faster than Orchi's ancient PC at home)...Orchi
shall try to bring your memory back to this related thread posted...previously
by Orchi.

Note: ALL previous pictures posted in the relevant eBay listing by the Seller on the SAME 1675...had mysteriously been deleted...

Now why would the Seller do that...?

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=67025

In there...The Seller has repeatedly posted the same faulty listings in eBay
after each time...it has been invalidated by Lady Casper(or out of her report
to eBay that might have done it)...which in Orchi's opinion have violated
eBay's listing policies...

Lets get straight to the points...

1. The Seller declares or swears(in Orchi's opinion) that the 1675 watch being listed is 100% Factory original...Unpolished...etc. etc. etc.

In the Seller's latest attempt to RE-list the same watch...he is saying
the exact same thing...yada...yada...yada...

2. Now do you see what the RSC NYC says in the Service Bill...?
RSC NYC has described what looks to be a different 1675 watch...
with scratchy this...or bad that...stated clearly in the RSC paper...which the watch is apparently presented
to RSC by 02/12/09(RSC received date)...few days later AFTER...
Orchi highlighted the thread...to begin with....
since 02/09/09 in the TRF n VRF as well...in order to
gather additional feedbacks from more experience members there in VRF...
about the relevant 1675 watch.

(Buddy Jeff might be MORE familiar with some of the long standing
members in VRF...Orchi wonders whether he doubts the credentials of the VRF too???)

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759.....BUT%28%2B%29

3. On 02/12/09 when The RSC NYC...1st received the watch...is right in assessing that 1675 watch's poor conditions...
n the RSC NYC has adequately quoted USD555 for Servicing...
n CASE Refinishing of the Case...amongst other things...for that 1675 watch...with S/Nos. 309,xxx...

4. On the otherhand...the Seller has presented his 100% FACTORY Original
1675 watch with the same S/Nos...in what looks to be an absolutely NEW Case...with NEWly stamped S/Nos. n Case Ref nos...!!!???

Having that said for now...
since Orchi still has a very bad internet connection...

Would buddy Springer do the honour...to post ALL the relevant pictures from
the Seller's LATEST listing of the relevant 1675 watch in eBay...after this?

Hey Maestro...Drum rolls please...

These are in Orchi's own opinion...
the CORRECT Case Ref# fonts for ROLEX CASES that were ORIGINALLY made in 1971/72 era...or so by ROLEX...that is IF Buddy Jeff Hess may like to review them for their authenticity...

One of which is posted by Buddy Motomc1...in here.



Another picture Posted by Buddy Marcello Pisani...in here.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...%21%21+here+is...

[shaggy]

the guy sent me this

[greekbum]

Guys this should be very easy.If you think this seller is up to no good and you are a buyer and are still skeptical do this. Call RSC NY and mention this to them show them the pics and the service paper etc. I am sure they have never handled a case from 1972 this mint in the last week and would remember it.If that watch was handed to me I would be in awe of how in so many years it looked so good I would even show it to my coworkers.I am sure they will remember it. I know I have handled many watches and can remember years back if I ever had one that mint let alone last week.There are many well respected guys on this thread surely one of you knows someone at RSC NY and can make a call im sure they will have an interest as well dont you think?

[Orchi]

Err buddies...as Orchi is UNABLE to do so...due to slow internet access...
PLEASE help Orchi to download...ALL the pictures in the Seller's current
listing...n save the pictures into your PC hard disc...

The Seller MAY be deleting the relevant pictures by now from the eBay
listing...since Orchi has highlighted the relevant discrepancies of his
listing in here...

He did the similar thing in the previous thread by deleting ALL the pictures
from those listings that were invalidated by eBay...

SAVE THE PICTURES...FOR PROOF...of the discrepancies...NOW Please!