So on FB someone posted this and asked how the reference was. It got a lot of its fake comments and at first I assumed it was just the FB group idiocy where someone always calls a watch a fake.



As I own one of these in a different color variation a quick scan said real. Subdials details are right, quality looks good, Angled bezel. Never seen one of these faked at a high level.

missed the completely obvious tell.

tldr: even if you know what your doing you can still miss an obvious fake.


For the record this is a real one. Sure a few details are slightly off but even if you owned one you wouldn’t notice the slight differences in hour markers and slightly ring around the subdials.

 

Comparing the two pics, the presence of indices at 3 and 9 o'clock, as well as the raised date, are pretty dead giveaways.

But kudos for reporting on your mistake. How much did you lose in that scam ?

 

Diff color date windows too.

 

Wow- that is actually a decent looking fake. As I don’t know the reference, I would have been fooled without seeing a real one in comparison side-by-side. No matter how long we have been at this, sometimes when we start looking at the minutia, we overlook the glaring issues- like “Switzerladn”.

 

And the 24 minute totalizer

 

yup exactly my point lol. Lower skilled people can spot it instantly. Experienced people completely miss the sub dial markings.... a massively easy tell.

 

Uhhhhhh, and why might we need two 60 minute totalizers?

 

Naw... that's the weekalizer, rare option that.

My uncle had one, the prototype no less...

 

I wasn’t buying it. Someone was asking about that reference and asking about it. I own one of them and was going to give my thoughts. The poster accidentally posted a fake one.

Most fakes from this time period are obvious fakes. This level of quality is unexpected for a model like this at that time. So many experienced collectors would not realize it’s a fake at a casual glance.

Its a model most of us know exists but don’t see that often, hence the minor details are not noticed. I own it in a different color and I missed the minor details at first, because it’s really well finished and detailed, which you would not expect in a fake from that era.

the large glaring detail of the obviously wrong subdial recording is completely glossed over.

 

“Omega” and “Seamaster” look out of alignment too, and unless it’s poor lighting, “Seamaster” looks like it’s climbing uphill.

 

The giveaway for me is the gigantic font of the minute numbers. Look at just the number 60 there on the fake vs real. The real one has a small font. The rest are all gigantic font on the fake.

 

Thanks for posting this, especially with the correct version for comparison.

Another good reminder for staying vigilant when considering a purchase. It's funny how the mind sees what it expects to see and not what is actually there. I didn't immediately pick up on the double 60 register until reading about it in a follow up post. That would be a gut punch when the watch arrives in the mail. How could I miss that.

Again, thanks for the thread.

 

I see both sides here. I certainly can see how it’s a “quality rep” aka “shitter” that’s what the collectors of these things call them. I frequent Reddit for some of my other hobbies and there is a large collector base of reps. I’ve talked to a few of these guys and many have no desire to fool people but it seems the new thing, it’s probably not new just new to me is reps of vintage Rolex. It’s a bit concerning, some actually look pretty good although I’m sure they are easy tells for people knowledgable about vintage Rolex. Looks like they work to get that aged lume look down pretty good. It certainly is concerning, I’m not the watch police. About a month ago I saw a couple that looked pretty convincing, didn’t want to post them here but certainly something to keep up to date with. I know they are out there with “rep vintage omegas” of course. Just scary stuff in general.

 

The Rolex thing has been scary, particularly as some of these rep builders are very good and pay excruciating attention to detail- they know what they are doing. Most do it for personal enjoyment and have no intention to fool anyone if they chose to sell one, but if someone bought it with the intention of passing it off as real....

 

I agree but @Walrus you’ve been around awhile, this is not a model I’d seen faked at high finishing level. Hence I just assumed it was good, like many around here would at a casual glance.

 

Sometimes it's just downright funny. I found a post from someone (not on here) bragging about their rep that they bought. They were only disappointed that it looked "too new" for its "age." They boasted of their efforts by scratching it up with sandpaper and are "super proud" to have a vintage sub now. if I had been drinking anything when I had read their post, it would have been a spit take all over my computer. Below is their before/after (for clarity- these are not my pictures. I would never buy into this shit).

 

Oh definitely I agree I saw exactly what you were saying. I just used the opportunity to bring up the many vintage Rolex reps I’ve been seeing which also look relatively good at a quick glimpse. I just used your bringing this up to get that it which has been on my mind

 

the date window is also different colour / alignment. The good thing about the moonwatch is that I’ve never seen a fake one with proper functioning sub dials, the movement that is used isn’t a clone and so the sub dials don’t work as they should.

 

Lol, I would hope at least one of them is a small seconds!!

Is it me or is the applied Omega symbol too big?

 

Wrong/different bezel too but yeah, that double 60 should jump out more. I'll admit I noticed the different bezel first always looking for subtle instead of the obvious.