either thats a super rare watch or questionable, however- both of those ideas ride on the line of each.

 

It's a Panasonic LX100 m43 sensor, taken at the widest angle 24mm equivalence for the max macro capability. This causes the distortions so the over all shape or look of the case cannot be judged properly. I didn't have much time late in the day in a not too bright shop, so the depth of field was not as much as I'd like. The pic of the dial's back is also dark and out of focus. Nor I could get as many pics as needed.

As far as the case is concerned, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. It looked in real life just pretty much like those I've found thru google. The second last picture above is closer to its real shape so you can compare it to others.

My main concern is the dial. It's like nothing I ccould find, but the quality is so good under a loupe, it's definitely not a redial and much better than any fakes I've seen. It's very different, but I'm not sure what's wrong or incorrect there. That's why I hesitated and stopped in the middle of making payment when I saw Kyle's "no good" message.

 

I do not like any of it. Nothing looks right on the case, proportions are wrong, shapes and curves are wrong. It is good to stay well clear of this.

 

Like I said above, you can't judge the shapes, proportions or the look of the case. Judge ignore the case if you don't understand what I said in the previous message. Thanks.

You can certainly judge the case's markings, the movement or the dial. Your opinion is very welcome on these parts.

 

OK - I'll bite on just the case marking that is marginally useful: Serial # 562747 on the Rolex Serial Project puts this watch as manufactured about mid 1960 - or in 5510 range. I don't like the position of the style of engraving. I could be wrong buy I really don't think so. All of the photos look off. Sorry dude.

From your photo: https://omegaforums.net/data/attachments/119/119577-147a6e9897155f655f8fc714b2d1a8be.jpg

 

I don't think Rolex serial numbers can be that reliably pinpoint since another list puts it in around 1957. The comment about the style is reasonable, but is not really conclusive though. Do you have pictures of the serial numbers for the other 6538s?

Thanks.

 

I think you're almost looking into us convincing you. All we can do is give our opinion. You obviously feel great about the watch aside from the dial issue, which is also questionable to some. But if you feel strong about it get it. After all it's for you to enjoy.

 

I'm looking for everyone's opinion along with any evidence that's convincing enough not to buy it, but have received not much of the latter so far. Has anyone seen this dial on another questionable watch before? I don't want to buy this watch based on my feelings

 

The most accurate publicly available serial # list I know of is the one on VRF. All other publicly available ones are less accurate. Taking a quick look at the serial engraving and your photo (poor and on an angle) and comparing to three of four other serial #s in images sourced from VRF/VRM and others so not match. They do not match to my slightly older small crown case.

The number one thing that shows me this is not good is the rehaut which is shaped more like the radar dish on a WWII era battleship than a Big Crown Rolex. Looks like you can scoop ice cream with that case.

As for evidence convincing enough you have posted numerous photos that show something to run away from yet you indicate the photos are distorted due to camera equipment in use. The people on VRF that said no good have likely had numerous copies of these pass though their hands per year and probably own a few. I am not a photographer so I cannot debate that with you but what I see in the photos is no good. I think the whole thing is likely fake. If you want to buy it go nuts, but people smarter than me here and over on VRF have said run away. To me, and I assume many others here, the photos ARE conclusive enough to stay away. The only way you might change that is with better photos that drastically change people's opinions. Even then the guys on VRF have stated the dial is no good.

My one recommended remaining recourse if I wanted objective opinions would be for you to take additional photos with camera equipment that does not distort the images. Then retry. I believe you will still receive the same responses.

I have no dog in this fight, if you buy this almost assuredly fake watch you will hurt nobody but yourself. People here are truly trying to help you. If you are this convinced it is legit I recommend you take it to a well regarded expert for a paid appraisal. The highly regarded experts with their free appraisal have already recommend you run away from this piece.

 

As noted it is an Asian clone. Way to many problems to note with case, dial, bezel, etc.
I have owned probably 6 or 7 and from my eyes, nuff said. m

 

Just my opinions here. I could be wrong. I have not read your VRF posts.
I do not own a 6538.
4 liner and post 1957 6538 should have Red triangle bezel insert.
This insert looks to emulate the early 6536 and 6538 style no minute hash
but the fonts do not look like what I have on my hard drive of known real inserts.
Lume is definitely NOT original. 6536 and 6538 had the 6 marker made out of different
compound and it ALWAYS looks whiter than the other markers on original dials.
The OCC serifs look way off, too exaggerated. Specifically, I don't think there
should be any detectable serif on the "C" I looked through the ones I have on my
hard drive and none look like this. The "L" serif also looks unnatural and
again, I think there should be no detectable serif. The I and the C are running
into each other in OFFICIALLY and I can't find this trait on any of the dials
I have on my hard drive.
The Submariner relative spacing also does not look similar to any I have on hard drive,
but there are a lot of variation in these dials.
The rehaut doesn't bother me, I am including a picture of a 6538 with similar
rehaut but it is an early 6538. I am by no means an expert on the 6538.
I would specifically ask Eric Ku, PhilippS, Bernard on VRF. If they say it's no good, it's no good.
The flat top 4 in the serial number between the lugs also looks suspicious to me.
I'll also include some 6538 4 liners here for comparison.

Here's the one with similar rehaut, but it is a double reference 6536-6538, thin case:


This is a Vietnam dial:


Here are some real 6538 4 liners:
Serial 674xxx:

 

Wow, just wow. Great job!

 

Cheers pitpro, awesome reference set there! I imagine that will help a great deal.

 

Thanks pitpro! That's almost exactly what I've found: too much serif everywhere on the dial including the word Rolex; close spacing around Submariner; wrong bezel insert and no issue with the rehaut. I've also found the movement is too beat up for the case in that good condition. That's why I did not just run, but flew away from it by the time I got the first reply to this thread. Still, I just want to have solid confirmation to prevent me from flying back to buy it

Thanks everyone for your opinions and eagerness to help! It's been short but quite an exciting hunt for me.

 

Didn't seem.likr you where running there, for a moment it felt more like everyone had to push you a bit... I do think you made the right decision though.

 

I didn't want to let a rare and valuable beast (if real) slip away when it's was already on my wrist, but the first response by Kyle was enough to push me away. And I literally flew away from it, knowing I still had the chance to fly back otherwise.