All, I was visiting a family member who showed me a watch they've had for quite some time. They apparently inherited it from another family member, but know basically nothing about it. While I know a decent amount about Omegas, I know virtually nothing about Rolex. I know the photos are lousy, but does the watch seem to be legitimate? I know that the band is not a Rolex, but one point of concern is the lack of a "Swiss Made" on the bottom of the dial (or at least I couldn't make one out) Thanks all
Horrible dial, heavily worn. Is it the owner who is interested, or you? If you are interested, how could you possibly be interested?
As I said in my post, the owner is a relative of mine. I am merely trying to figure out if it looks legitimate or not.
We would need to see a whole lot more visual cues before we could make a judgement as to the watch. We’d need to see good clear shots of the case between the lugs, with the bracelet off. The quality of any additional photos would need to be vastly improved from the quality we have seen thus far. A photo of the movement in the case, after the back is removed. Once a determination is made, and if it is deemed to be real, the decision would need to be arrived at as to what to do with it.
With the caveat that I'm not an expert, but the wear on it looks like the bezel is white gold, so I'm guessing real. With a really, really, really, bad redial.
Engine-turned bezels are steel. Regarding the dial, I can't tell if it's wonky, or if it just appears that way because the crystal is a mess. Better photos are needed.
While I can’t be certain the whole watch is fake without seeing serial numbers on the case and movement, the dial is absolutely fake.
The “engine turned” style bezel that is on the watch is stainless steel. The white gold bezels are fluted.
Why does everyone think the dial is a redial? How can someone even judge the dial in these photos? The crystal is absolutely FUBAR. Each different angle produces clearer or worse looking letters. Pictures of the dial without the polished with 180 grit crystal/acrylic in the way are 100% needed before judgement can be passed on the dial as Dan S said. Heck, Helen Keller could rub that crystal and get a page worth of words out of it. OP just needs to get it opened up and get some better pics and everyone can start over from there. Whether real or not, that watch as been through A LOT! Ha ha.
Sounds like you think the dial might be original and not refinished. It appears as though you might just be a minority!
Nope. Too new in the watch game to make those judgements. Especially on a Rolex. I am just saying I know that the crystal is toast and what stuff can look like behind such a thing. That is all. No argument from me on either side of the real or redial fence.
Aside from the print being off on the dial, no Swiss markings at 6 is dead giveaway. The fact there is no lume on the dial but lume on the hands is further evidence one or the other is incorrect but I’d put my money on the dial.
Thank you for the explanation of what to look for. So, is no Swiss at the bottom and there being no lume signs of a redial or a fake?
A bit of a loaded question. 1) I know of no examples in Rolex history where they did not include some form of Swiss markings at 6. 2) Rolex does not produce models from the factory that had mismatching hands & dials in regards to lume. They would either both have lume or not, for obvious reasons. Hard to say if it’s a redial or fake as they are somewhat similar if not done correctly.
#2 isn’t quite true. There are correct vintage no lume dial DJ references with lumed hands. Google “no lume vintage datejust” and you will see they are fairly well known, though not common. You should not find a lumed dial with unlumed hands however. Several threads have addressed this on the Rolexforums vintage sub forum.