Forums Latest Members

Just forgetting all those small details when faking...darn.

  1. Seiji Dec 27, 2017

    Posts
    1,309
    Likes
    2,758
  2. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Dec 27, 2017

    Posts
    12,206
    Likes
    15,722
    ::confused2::
    gatorcpa
     
  3. redpcar Dec 27, 2017

    Posts
    3,699
    Likes
    7,910
     
  4. dennisthemenace Hey, he asked for it! Dec 27, 2017

    Posts
    2,828
    Likes
    4,461
    Longines noob here. What's fake about it?
     
  5. Seiji Dec 27, 2017

    Posts
    1,309
    Likes
    2,758
    Wrong domed plexi not mineral glass.
    Wrong case. No faceted "bezel"
    Wrong hands.
    Wrong hour markers.

    I don't believe there are any variations.
    Below correct.

    9662-z2.jpg 9662-z3.jpg
     
    yako54 likes this.
  6. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Dec 27, 2017

    Posts
    12,206
    Likes
    15,722
    Now I understand.

    Thanks,
    gatorcpa
     
  7. dodo44 Dec 28, 2017

    Posts
    242
    Likes
    268
    I am not sure that I would call it a fake but rather an unfortunate restoration. The faceted bezel was probably destroyed during a removal with pliers (the domed mineral crystal was probably lost during the same event). Does anyone know where to source the tool for removing those facetted bezels (14 sided)?
     
    Edited Dec 28, 2017
  8. Seiji Dec 28, 2017

    Posts
    1,309
    Likes
    2,758
    I think it is a totally different case. If it is a Longines case it could even be from 8271
    B5C3367A-7EB2-4169-9EE1-36A0053F613B.jpeg

    284F3835-EFC7-4348-AD78-10C4A2FDF1C3.jpeg
     
    dodo44 likes this.
  9. dodo44 Dec 28, 2017

    Posts
    242
    Likes
    268
    I see your point. The case back looks correct. Definitely a franken. I double checked and Longines actually made Conquest Divers without the locking ring, so the watch to which I posted the link may have been correct (I have edited my post so as not to mislead potential buyers that there is something wrong with the other ebay listing that I had pointed to; the link has been removed).
     
  10. Seiji Dec 28, 2017

    Posts
    1,309
    Likes
    2,758
    The buttons and crown are different heights from a 8271 but very close to 8225. So hard to say if case is from 8271... anyway not worth wasting time. The more you look, the more you realize how messed up this watch is.
     
  11. cagkut Jan 12, 2018

    Posts
    166
    Likes
    169
    Any comments on this one? I am just about to acquire it, but seeing this thread I am sceptical...
     
    IMG_1897.JPG
  12. dodo44 Jan 12, 2018

    Posts
    242
    Likes
    268
    It all looks good to me but you would want to check the movement and details of the crown and case back. The strap is also probably the original one that it came on. This model is probably a 8225-1. I have a 8225-2 and there is a difference in the dial. The 8225-1 is marked T SWISS "marker" MADE T, while the 8225-1 often (always?) has T SWISS T above the marker (see pictures below). If you do not mind, what is the price that it is offered at?
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  13. cagkut Jan 12, 2018

    Posts
    166
    Likes
    169
    Thanks it says 8225-2 69 inside the caseback but I have seen this dial variation on many 8225-2 photos that I have been checking online, I don't think the dial is replaced maybe they were coming in both variations?
     
  14. dodo44 Jan 12, 2018

    Posts
    242
    Likes
    268
    Yes, I think that the 2 dial configurations are correct for a 8225-2.