PS: I’ll politely remind you that the threads *I* apologize in are subsequently deleted by the mods*

*true and recent example

 

Let's everybody just calm down. Keep in mind, you're a bunch of adult men, arguing over jewelry. Chill plz

 

@cvalue13

You've been quite reasonable on this thread, but that's not an accurate representation of the thread arch. If you believe that these examples are all original, yet you don't think that such a fact would be mysterious, I'm not sure what to say.

It does seem to have been established that the engraving methods employed by Rolex during that period were not of the highest quality. And the OP and others claim that the variations of quality were great. Of course if we accept at face value that all of the photos of such watches that have been presented are original, then we would indeed have conclusive evidence to support the claim. But are they?

I'd remind everyone again that there were a very large number of Rolex produced during that time, and we are viewing only a tiny fraction. Furthermore, we are seeing inconsistencies that are very difficult to explain. Why would a watch from 1956 have relatively high-quality engravings, while some produced several years later show far worse?

And again, how is it possible that many other manufacturers, including small, and frankly inconsequential ones, were having case backs stamped 10, 15, and 20 years earlier, and with vastly superior results, yet Rolex chose to have some of theirs done around 1960, using inferior methods, and with such incredibly poor results?

Can anyone provide examples of anything close to such poor, original work produced by any manufacturers at the time? If not, why would Rolex be the exception?

Also, as mentioned to the OP above, if Rolex collectors are ready and willing to accept such poor quality as "factory original", it should be obvious that unscrupulous sellers have taken advantage of that, and therefore at least some of the watches floating around are not original.

 

@blufinz52 and I are engaged in a long tradition of boomer (him) vs gen-X (me) friendship kindling - much like every movie starring old Clint Eastwood (him) and any younger, smarter, character

You stay out of it

Besides, the point you just made is exactly the one I was intending to inject toward @Tony C. , and you’ll see where it gets you

....

F’n hell - when did this forum become so devoid of hyperbole-recognition!?

I thought this was a f’n Aussie forum where taking a piss was the prime directive (after f’n cursing)?

In any event, @Tony C. , curious of your take on the Hermès examples? You do keep repeating “why, why, why would Rolex ever think to put things on the outside of the caseback that are redundant to the interior markings and inferior in workmanship...”

It seems to me the Hermès is a prime example, no?

It doesn’t explain the example being discussed, but it does provide an example of the category you’re “why, why, why”-ing about?

....

this entire hand-wringing seems a weird distraction to me; are we really suddenly alarmed that there a quality of vintage watches that could be manipulated unscrupulously? Isn’t the existence of unscrupulously deployed information 1/2 the reason we’re all here - to sort through it?

 

The Hermes quality isn't nearly as bad, and I'd say that the comparison isn't taut for other reasons, as well. Those were third-party gold cases, and Hermes – not a watch company – was responsible for the signatures. Furthermore, iconic gold marks on the outside of cases isn't redundant with spelling it inside of a case back, in anything like the same way as spelling out "stainless steel" both inside and outside, let alone with wildly different quality.

Surely you can see the distinction. I'm not shocked – shocked to find that there is gambling going on in this establishment, but pointing out that a cavalier attitude towards such poor quality is an invitation to commit fraud, and necessarily pollutes the pool of purportedly original watches.

Of course there are issues with misrepresentation across the board in the vintage watch world, but when the original quality standards are high, it becomes difficult to fool sophisticated collectors. With appallingly low "original" quality standards, how might anyone, no matter how expert, to be expected to discern originality?

 

You're right of course that, regardless of whether or not such markings ever left the factory, they can be easily replicated. Unless there was a scientific way to confirm with a micrometer, or some nonsense about widths, etc.

Still, if we assume the watch was single-owner as the OP claims, his example would not have the opportunity to be marred by an unscrupulous reseller. Although your observation is correct, it is not relevant to the question of whether the op's watch is original (if we assume for the sake of argument that at least some of these marking are original).

Of course, this all stems from the assumption that his watch DID, in fact, come from its original owner, who had no reason to tamper with it.

 

How old are you?
You joined the forum like 8 years ago - and also know how to write - so I gotta assume you are at least 11 or 12 years old.
That pretty much makes every discussion on that topic with you obsolete.

Funny how there is an extreme amount of pitting on the left and the right of the serial number - but not on the serial number itself...
Almost as if someone welded it, got rid of the pitting to preserve the numbers - and afterwards hand engraved the watch (of course with the correct numbers, not saying the watch itself is not original).

 

This is an interesting scenario. It could have been that some country or company required the SS to be on the casebook and it was added after the fact for compliance.

But notice the quality of the Hermes you bring forward, next to it the one one the explorer is basically a cat scratch. And that's the thing, it is not even an engraving, I can do the same thing with a screw driver.

Ans you are right, there is not proof that the same man, team, department etc is engraving the movement, the inside of the caseback, and the outside of the caseback. But you would think the company would hold all departments to a similar standard.

It is somewhat flippant to say: "back then people didn't care about the engraving quality as much." Because if they cared, a lot, about the quality of the engravings in the inside of a watch where they are not going to be seen....they surely would care about engravings that are seen.

I have grandfathered pocket watches from my family with very well made engravings. (They're in Spain so no pics) but I think we all have seen notable custom engravings made to commemorate dates or events or people that are far superior in quality.

Again, I may be wrong, I am not trying to proof anything or convince anyone, just stating my point of view.

 

A modest proposal indeed ...

I’d note the somewhat self-contradictory nature of @Tony C. s reasoning here. On one hand he’s saying the engraving is so egregiously bad that no serious collector could take it seriously; on the other hand he’s saying people could do these things to fool serious collectors? Point being, it seems this observation cuts both ways at best, so we should move on to other critiques

To my (admittedly relatively novice eye), the movement certainly appears untouched. OP notes this in first post and I’ve not seen anyone dispute it in connection with putting forward theories that some watchmaker doing a service might have...

....

I think you’re incorrect here, and that these Hermès inscriptions were done by Rolex in connection with filling their order terms - but I’m here thoroughly inviting contradictory info!

Did Tiffany & Co do their own dial logos on Tiffany watches, too?

The point of course was not whether the inscription was as bad; the point was merely that it was not the same quality, depth, or technique as the interior engravings. Obviously this is relevant because for several pages you and others were saying in effect “if the technology was available on the inside of the caseback then it shows it is ridiculous to suggest that different techniques/qualities could be present on the outside of the same caseback”

So, to that extent, there’s nothing at all “untaut” about the analogy

Here again, the obvious point is that there was in fact a legitimate reason to have these hallmarks on both the interior and exterior: import/export laws (or conveniences). So here again, the point is relevant to the extent you and others were repeating in effect “there could be no reasonable explanation for needing to state anything on both the inside and outside of the caseback.”

I specifically mentioned that the example doesn’t explain the “stainless steel” on this caseback, but instead gave examples to counter the broader proclamations of absurdity.

 

So why did they care about the inner engravings so much? If they didn't care, why is there such amazing consistency on far more complex engravings in the movement and inner case-back?

It just does not make sense

 

I agree that my Hermès example only results in the following advancement:

We can stop suggesting there are NO scenarios where Rolex would use different/inferior techniques on the interior vs exterior of casebacks, and we can stop suggesting there are NO scenarios that marks on the interior of the caseback would tolerate a duplication on the exterior of the caseback

Which means the “mystery” has reduced to merely (1) why would they duplicate SS in particular (as compared to previous hallmarks), and (2) why is this example so particularly bad (compared to other examples that are merely “worse”)

But this is a much narrower field of play, and maybe let’s us focus on the limited nature of the “mystery”

....

As for that limited nature:

I do not find it so surprising that in the history of Rolex orders someone, somewhere, thought it either necessary or convenient to note SS on the exterior. (If for example certain imports required confirming a SS marking existed, and whomever preceded they not be opening the watch to do so?).

In fact, I’d find it weird to off hand suggest as a principle that in the varied history of Rolex orders it would not have happened.

Which leaves me then only here:

Rolex obviously had occasion to use different techniques and apply lower standards to certain engravings on casebacks - and it’s odd to think that occasionally the standards were this low

On the other hand, it is a single example we’re implicating Rolex with at the moment

 

If memory serves me, I believe they did historically apply their logos. Happy to be corrected though.

 

I feel Like @Tony C. boyfriend here: There is no contradiction here. A bad engraving can mean any of these scenarios:

1- authentic amazing watch with bad original engraving
2- Authentic watch with a bad not original engraving (whatever the reason may be)
3- non authentic watch with an engraving made for the purpose of deceit.

There are examples of all those scenarios in the market on any brand. That's why we don't normally disclose serials. This being said to my understanding:

NOBODY, NOT TONY C NOT ME NOR TRUMP is disputing the authentic nature of this watch. We are just puzzled by the degree of mishandling of the outer engravings, (against the inside engravings in my case.)

I can actually understand the serials between logs being somewhat inconsistent and I have seen that. The area is small and curved and the lugs limit access to it so I can see how that is a tougher one. But the SS cat scratch seems very difficult to accept as factory (to me) Why is it there? I don't know, who put it there? I don't know....I like the idea of it being customs or some other related compliance for a specific market done after the fact...but the fact that I like that doesn't mean it's any more plausible.

Could it be factory engraving....I guess, at this point anything goes but I just have my reservations.

 

That's it, Perfection. That's the argument. Or mystery.

 

He's not necessarily being contradictory. He's setting up two scenarios:

Scenario 1. Some of the marking are factory original.
Scenario 2. None of the marking are factory original.

Then he explains what follows:

Scenario 1. Even if we should take these seriously, verifying the originality of an example is an extremely hard thing to do, if not impossible, given how easy it is to fake.
Scenario 2. Nobody should take these markings seriously.

 

Dunno if this has been offered yet, after a quick read of the thread, but:

What if this IS quality control? The bad engravings, I mean.
Rolex is/was putting out tons of watches. Tooling, dies, machinery... these things dull, foul, misalign, etc... all the time. Especially on older equipment.
So it's probably some dude's job at the end of the line ( or end of some part of the process ) to check the serials, etc... and if they were out of whack, to scratch them in there legibly.
It becomes less frequent over time as Rolex can more readily afford to replace dies, upgrade QC in the process, tools and machinery become better, and so on.
You also see stuff like this in military collectibles.

 

Could be.

 

What conclusion are you drawing then? That the engravings aren't original if they're 'too shaky'? Perhaps 'not care' wasn't the correct term to use, but it's clear that the quality was variable to say the least.

Casebacks were stamped and produced en masse as they are not specific to a single watch in the same way as a serial engraving is, so it's not comparing like with like.

 

This is exactly what it is.