First off, apologies if anyone didn't want to see this live auction to be highlighted. It's public and has a fair amount of watchers, so it's not completely under the radar— and I would welcome some thoughts from the forum before potentially putting in a bid.

Now for the auction: https://www.ebay.com/itm/274914123502Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network (pictures pasted below, for posterity).

The seller seems reputable and knowledgeable and states the watch comes from the original owner and is 100% genuine, which I am not debating. While the case does seem extremely sharp and the dial and hands look very clean at first glance, I'm a bit taken back by the font detailing, and how fuzzy the inscriptions on the dial look.

The bars on the "E"s in "Oyster" and "Explorer" are so fuzzy they touch each other.


Same with the S's in "Swiss", that almost look like marshmallows.


Am I overthinking this, could it be the close ups are too blown out for their own good? Or is my eye just not used the intricacies of Rolex dial fonts?

Members' informed commentary would be much appreciated!

Here are more photos of the watch:

 

I’m no 1016 expert (is there a level below totally ignorant), but this does not look kosher!

 

Right? The first "R" in "Chronometer" doesn't even have a hole

 

Even if it was genuine (I’m deeply convinced it isn’t, but I’m not playing in that league) how could this kind of printing be desirable anyway?

 

Isn’t this one of the rare marshmallow-font 1016s? Must be worth millions!



Seriously, though, I have never seen a Rolex dial that poorly done. At the best, it’s a redial. At the worst…

 

Not as familiar about older models but agree with the members above.
Check out this listing. This is definitely a fake? What kind of lettering is on this dial?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1427064984...k52LyqXhFKGaF7qBqJQY|ampid:PL_CLK|clp:2334524Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

Good eye. The listing indicates that the dial is refinished, but in fine print.

 

DO NOT BID on it! The movement is NOT a superlative chronometer movement! I am unable to read the movement calibre number, but the yellow arrow in the attached photo points at the tail of a standard regulator, with curb pins! The chronometer movement is free sprung, so no standard regulator. That dial is poorly detailed, and is not original to that movement! I hope I’m not too late!

 

Good eye on that. Hopefully, potential buyer will scroll all the way down (which I stopped after looking at the dial).

 

Not too late, and no bids have been made. I appreciate the experts opinions and am glad I asked here before taking any step towards that watch.

 

This is what the movement looks like with full zoom on the listing photo

 

The poor photo initially led me to judge that the movement was either a calibre 1520 or 1530, neither of which is a chronometer. The more detailed photo indicates it is a chronometer movement, and the arrow I inserted is pointing at the stud carrier, not the tail of a regulator. My error. But the dial is poor, as has been pointed out.

 

Any thoughts on whether the dial of watch from the eBay listing initially posted in this thread is refinished or not original?

 

The dial looks like one of the raffles dials he sold before he stopped selling the fake branded ones. These were abundant in the “mod” forums a few years back

 

fake dial, Frankenstein bracelet (SEL with 83 clasp??), not unpolished obviously, wrong movement.

And he has the nerve to state "unpolished 10/10 perfection"...

we are lucky that "the watch will be verified so you no longer have to risk receiving something not as described or fake."

 

Respectfully, if one is interested in buying a particular 4-digit sport Rolex, it's a good idea to spend a few months taking a really deep dive into every detail of that reference. Look at thousands of examples and read everything you can find. Asking open-ended questions in a thread like this has limited value. You will get answers and speculation from various sources, but ultimately you need to be able to rely on your own expertise. Once you have fairly deep knowledge about the reference, if there is a fine detail that still concerns you, you can PM a top expert and ask focused and educated questions.

Another option is to increase your budget, and buy a top-notch watch from a well-known dealer or auction house. Even then it's good to be able to use your own judgement.

 

You are absolutely right, and the fact of the matter is that asking this type of question also helps one's education in better understanding the details of a reference. I asked for opinions out of of genuine curiosity. To my eye, the dial certainly looks wrong (and in any case unattractive), but I am unable to tell if it comes from a botched run of genuine dials, if it has been refinished, or if it's flat out fake. The DateJust listed higher in the thread is clearly a (mediocre) redial, but this 1016 in question is harder to tell. At least for me. The font looks like it was applied not by hand but by a machine. The fuzziness of the font is certainly off— so if I had to guess I would say it is a replica. But it could come from an uncommon run of dials with a known characteristic like this fuzzy font I've never seen before. In that regard, answers from more experienced collectors are always of help.

I certainly don't yet have anywhere near the level of expertise to buy a 1016 with confidence but I am training myself. I'll go back to my homework now. And if I do reach out to the forum again with questions, I'll be thankful for people's patience and advice.

 

This has been an insightful read. I usually find that if a vintage watch is a little too perfect then something is probably off.

 

There should be a lot of leeway in the thickness of printing (both on matte dials and inserts) but there are a lot of inconsistencies between the shapes of the same letters, which you wouldn't expect as much if it was just a worn cliche. Biggest giveaway is all the different shapes of the "R"s. Top is the watch in question, bottom is an original dial:


The lume color is also comically yellow and not in keeping with an 80s 1016.