Bought this little guy today. Well fooled, rushed and without my loupe, though the $40 price should have given it away!!! Still, looks like pretty decent works. Anyone know who made it? I see references to Helbros...
The worn-off gold plate should have been some indication. Regarding your question...read the title of the thread.
I see all these pictures of fake Omegas, but could some of you posters and seasoned veterans explain how you deem a watch to be fake? All fresh members haven't a clue, and this would be a very valued source of information.
Two fakes for one price! “omega seamaster Swiss wrist watch ans omega speedmaster proffesional” Description says the speedmaster has 3 bent hands... ouch https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/202108680728
First Time post but I suspect this is a fake, a deVille on eBay UK with a Seamaster professional engraved pop off back and a Speedmaster back. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Omega-me...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network
Step 1. Go to the item, scroll down to "Report Item". Step 2. Select the options from the list boxes. Enter comments. Step 3. Click on "Submit Report". Step 4. Have a beer and bask in the satisfaction that you've helped some poor newbie by getting this watch pulled before he appears on this forum asking for advice about his "new find".
Now this is something I would call "deceptive" not sure if "fraud" is appropriate but it looks like the bezel and dial on this 145.022-69 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Tropical...511803?hash=item56a496773b:g:roAAAOSwyGZaAI1mPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network have been aged artificially to look more like a 105.012-66CB Blue Bezel (REAL ONE below) based on the information from https://www.fratellowatches.com/speedmaster-tropical-dial-parade/ it seems highly unlikely to get that tone of dial on a 69 along with the bezel which is not even a DON, even under California sunlight and asking £15,000 it seems more likely that this has been artifically aged somehow. Opinions?
Another "unlikely" 145.022-69 with brown dial https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VINTAGE-...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network This one in Miami seems suspicious because it's not a DON which dates it after to after quarter 3 in 1971 (source and colour from last waicth on https://www.fratellowatches.com/speedmaster-tropical-dial-parade/ and though it's a lot more realistic and nearer to the last example watch 145.022-69 (which happens to be the one I own except on a 1039 bracelet) and while I fully admit to being a newbie, I inherited my watch and when I noticed the brown dial assumed mine was fake so did quite a lot of looking around. Also the wording on the eBay advert "The cool factor of the Speedmaster is increased by the unbelievable state of this brown dial. The Speedmaster has reached a cult status amongst vintage watch fans and the fact that this watch is fitted with a tropical dial makes it all the more special and collectible." makes me more suspicious "fitted with a tropical dial" sounds like a retro fit job and that the ad has been legally vetted along with "unbelievable state of this brown dial" and asking for £13,500 sound a wee bit suspect to me. At this level of the market and the real prospect of being sued, is it "fraud" or "misleading", difficult to say the seller could have fallen victim, though in the UK that would be no excuse (I once bought a car that had been clocked and the dealer was liable by trading standards as they should have spotted it before selling it on). Meanwhile, I'll be the one over here in the corner shouting "fade more damn you" at my genuine dark chocolate dial because I would not say no to an extra £8,000
Possibly there's a place for "misleading advertising" or "deceptive practices"? For example, a UV light has clearly been used to "enhance" the lume on this not unreasonably priced 1970 145.022-69 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-1...-Pre-Moon-861-Watch-With-Extract/172934552980Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network You have to scroll through the thumbnails on the ad but, and the price is not unreasonable for the quality of calibre but I'd be a little disappointed if I bought that particular watch and then found it didn't light up like a glowstick in a Nightclub in Ibiza
This thread is not for discussions (see the title). If you're not 100% sure that it's a fake, it doesn't belong here.
fake adjective not genuine; imitation or counterfeit: she got on the plane with a fake passport | a fake Cockney accent. noun a thing that is not genuine; a forgery or sham: fakes of Old Masters. So by that definition, unless someone can prove that the watches above can possibly exist, with the patina's described and pictured for the time period then there's some artificial patination, re-dialing, or just plain misleading photographic practices going on, all of which fit the definition of "fake" and as a newbie I don't know everything so discussion is probably necessary in case I'm just plain wrong, otherwise these practices are bringing the brand into disrepute.
As already noted, this thread if for known fakes (counterfeits) not for discussion of what may or not be wrong with a given listing.
Okay so I will declare with 100% certainty that putting a blue bezel and/or chocolate dial on 145.022-72 watches makes them a fake then and devalues genuine 1969/ 1970 ones. No discussion.