Ref. 4768 Dato-Compax, Jean Claude Killy: Discrepancies and Questions

[IOB]

Dear All,

Very much hope that you can shed your expert insights about the following matter – I’m a newbie so please pardon my ignorance!

I’ve been doing some research into the Ref. 4768 Dato-Compax and the Jean Claude Killy watches.

Firstly, it is unclear whether the Ref. 4768 is, in fact, a “Jean Claude Killy”. There are various references to it as a JCK but there are also many that avoid including it under the JCK umbrella (including some auction houses (e.g. Sotheby’s and Phillips)). Can it be that JCK only includes the Oyster models (4767, 5036, 6036 and 6236) and not the 4768. What is your opinion on this?

The Ref. 4768 pictured here is my steel and gold version. I am seeking clarification about it and its anomalies/discrepancies with respect to other 4768s and dato-compax watches.

For example:

Do you think that the dial has been repainted, restored or modified in any way from the original factory version? Discrepancies between this dial and the “norm” include:

1. The word CHRONOGRAPHE not properly centred under ROLEX.

2. The font used on the sub-dial at 6 o’clock is different to that for the dials at 9 and 3 (e.g. number “3”).

3. The Tachymetre doesn’t have a scale. How can it be used? Notwithstanding, I have seen a picture of an Omega without the Tachymetre “scale” (see attached picture).

4. The words "ANTI-MAGNETIC" are missing from the lower part of the dial (- attached is a picture of another similar Rolex Killy dial, though).

Although the points listed above differ from the “norm”, I have seen supposedly untampered original dials with these “discrepancies”.

If these anomalies are true to the factory version, why did Rolex create such differences in the first place?

I was told by the seller (auction house) that the watch is confirmed by Rolex in Geneva as being authentic although nothing was stated by Rolex (Geneva) about the dial.

Can you see any non-original components in the picture (FYI, I haven’t opened up the back of the watch)?

What is your opinion about the “integrity” of the dial, the hands and the pushers? The crown has the Rolex crown on it.

Many thanks for your insights and feedback!

[Mark020]

I'd vote redial

[watch-guy.com]

Not jck- I think only applies to oyster cases

Julian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MILGAUSS88]

Definitely a redial. Dates are upside down.
What is really horrible about these watches is that fakes can easily be made from vintage non Rolex watches that share the same movement.

[IOB]

Many thanks to you all for your feedback!

The attached picture (courtesy of the Rolex Passion Report) of a Rolex advert shows the Ref. 5036 and 4768 with the date numerals upside down in the lower part of the dial, so this seems to indicate that such dials were made.

Has anybody ever seen an original dial where the Tachymeter scale was missing?