# Another Rolex



## acpeacemaker (Jan 30, 2016)

Just curious if anyone can tell me if this is real or fake. Or some clues to look for. I found it on an outting last year. Dial won't turn. I'm guessing it fell off a wrist because looking through the back a ring is kinda sideways on a gear.


----------



## jeneje (Jan 30, 2016)

You can take it to a jeweler and they can tell you if it is real or a fake. There should be a serial number under the back panel. You may be able to do a search with that number and find out something, not really sure but worth a try. 

Ken


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 30, 2016)

The pictures are low resolution, so I can't be sure, but it doesn't look right to me. If you post some higher resolution pictures, I'll take a closer look.

Dave


----------



## acpeacemaker (Jan 30, 2016)

Thank you guys for your help. Sorry Dave, juggling the watch in the right light it just begs to glare every which way.  I took the back off. It doesn't pop it unscrews. There's some copper showing on the inner threads. Not sure if its from the cap threads rubbing off. Says stainless bezel. I looked throughout for numbers or at least a stamp of some sort. Nothing. Unless its behind that white plastic guard. Not really sure how to pick that out. My guess was having the diamonds tested. It didnt think it was real, but not sure I don't ever deal in watches. 
Andrew


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 30, 2016)

I wish I could say it looks like the real deal, but I don't think so. Testing the stones probably won't tell you much. Melee like that is cheap, so even a lot of knock-offs use real diamonds. 

Dave


----------



## Grelko (Jan 30, 2016)

This is as close as I could find. It's hard to find an exact match for watches, since there's so many out there.

http://www.governmentauctions.org/uploaded_images/rolex2-710184.jpg
"Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date wristwatch. This watch is encrusted in diamonds which are set in the lugs and bezel. The diamond's total weight comes out to roughly 1.75CT."

Could be fake, but I'd get it tested just to be sure. Yours has the "cyclops lens" and looks similar to something out of the "lady datejust" collection
http://www.rolex.com/content/dam/rolexcom/e-brochures/lady-datejust/rolex_lady-datejust_en.pdf


----------



## acpeacemaker (Jan 30, 2016)

Okay, thanks for looking at it anyhow.  
If the bezel is copper underneath, what would be the purpose of making that fake? Wouldn't copper technically be more expensive? Or is it just the machining costs as to handmade expense? 

Thanks
Andrew


----------



## acpeacemaker (Jan 30, 2016)

Thank you Grelko for finding that info. :mrgreen: 
I'll look into it.

Thanks 
Andrew


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 30, 2016)

I'm not sure what you mean about copper being more expensive or how that would be an indicator. 

Rolex is among the premier luxury items. It is made to perfection in every detail. In your first two pictures, there appears to be corrosion on the case and winding crown, though that may just be the lighting.

The movement in your second set of photos just isn't Rolex. It would all be high precision and very finely finished. Rolex would not use a plastic spacer ring around the movement. Their movements are engraved with the Rolex name and usually Geneva Swiss as well as other information. They are miniature works of art.

Google some images of Rolexes, and especially the Rolex crown symbol. Yours doesn't look the same. It's too rounded and just not properly shaped. The spikes on the crown should be long and crisp. The rounded area at the base should be oval, not round.

There is too much space between the E and the J in DATEJUST on the dial.

I did a little checking. With the exception of a few 1930's models, Rolex doesn't make watches with clear backs, and the Datejust wasn't introduced until 1945.

Sorry.  

Dave


----------



## acpeacemaker (Jan 30, 2016)

Its okay, I really do appreciate the time. 
What I meant about the copper.... If its a knock off and says its a stainless bezel but its actually copper. Why wouldn't they just stick with a full stainless stock? Wouldnt the copper be more expensive to use on a knock off then actually just sticking with the stainless from the get go? That is, if your the copy cat maker. I hope that makes sense. 

Andrew


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Jan 30, 2016)

I got it now. I suppose the stainless may be a bit cheaper, but copper and copper alloys are much easier to cast and machine than stainless.

Dave


----------



## g_axelsson (Jan 30, 2016)

Without being an expert I would agree with Dave and say it's a fake. The quality isn't there that you would expect from a Rolex. Look at the orientation of the six o clock marker for example, it's rotated.

Göran


----------



## Grelko (Jan 30, 2016)

All of these are very good ways, but especially check number 10 on the list.
https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-blog/rolex-info/the-top-ten-ways-to-spot-a-fake-rolex.html

In 2002, Rolex began micro-etching a tiny crown logo at the 6 o’clock position on the crystal that protects the dial. If you’re looking at buying a Rolex made in 2002 onward, look for this marking for proof of authenticity. *Since it’s so small, it is difficult to see with the naked eye.* This detail also makes it difficult for counterfeit watches to include.


----------



## acpeacemaker (Jan 30, 2016)

Thank you guys for all the info. From everything stated it looks like a no brainer fake. Especially, stating only a few from the 30's were made with a clear back. It has glow hands on the front. Goran also pointed out the 6 o'clock jewel being off which I hadn't noticed. Too bad, but its okay. Life goes on. 8) 

Thanks 
Andrew


----------



## Grelko (Jan 30, 2016)

acpeacemaker said:


> Thank you guys for all the info. From everything stated it looks like a no brainer fake. Especially, stating only a few from the 30's were made with a clear back. It has glow hands on the front. Goran also pointed out the 6 o'clock jewel being off which I hadn't noticed. Too bad, but its okay. Life goes on. 8)
> 
> Thanks
> Andrew



There is a very small chance, that those diamonds could be real. It's highly doubtful, but no harm checking anyways.


----------



## acpeacemaker (Jan 31, 2016)

Grelko said:


> There is a very small chance, that those diamonds could be real. It's highly doubtful, but no harm checking anyways.



That's a good point. It would be a few more diamonds I didn't have, even if not worth much. :mrgreen: 

Thanks
Andrew


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Jan 31, 2016)

Rolex watches are heavier than most other watches, you can tell a significant difference.

If the watch works, the second hand should move at a constant rate across the face. If it ticks, or moves in such a way that it stops, moves, stops, it's not a real oyster movement.

One particular thing sticks out in my mind in your pictures, it's the "cyclops" or the magnifying lens for the date. Rolex is known for getting that particular feature perfect, meaning that it should also magnify at 2.5 times, and should be centered perfectly over the date, and should fill in the complete area of the lens without any spilling over the side, dead center. If it doesn't it either means the watch is fake, or that the lens or watch crystal has been replaced.

If it was a new watch, at the bottom of the watch face, on the edge of the crystal you should see the Rolex crown etched into the crystal. You will have to use a Loupe to see the crown, but this doesn't look like a newer watch so this method would not be viable to prove or disprove if your watch is a real Rolex.

Another way to tell a real Rolex from a fake is to remove the band, which you don't have to worry about, your band is already removed. You should see engraved numbers on the case, between the lugs. You should see the model number, and serial number which are easy enough to look up by doing a google search. If the numbers are not there, the case is not a Rolex. Remember, these numbers should be engraved and not etched, and not crooked or misaligned. The model will be engraved at the 12:00 sign and the serial number at the 6:00 sign.

Also, the quality is a good indicator. Imagine Rolex makes each watch as close to perfect as possible. If there are any visible flaws, specially if there are more than one, it's most likely not a Rolex, not even very well made fakes pass this test. 

If there is a window in the back plate, it's definitely a fake. 

The movement itself is manufactured with precise and different color wheels. Although this one looks like a few of the wheels might be differently colored, they do not look to me to be even close to a real Rolex. As well, the plastic around the inside, and the movement itself does not seem to be constructed of high quality materials. Also, real Rolex watches have engravings, not etchings, all over the inside of the movement, for adjusting and identification. This watch has none of those.

I would love to be able to congratulate you on a wonderful find. But considering that the watch itself does not look like it was made to as close as perfection as possible. Also, plastic was used in the movement compartment and that even if Rolex did use plastic in this way, the gap between the winding and the movement in the plastic would not be present. There are no identifying marks engraved on the movement at all. Also, the "cyclops" or the magnifying date window is definitely not directly over the date, nor does the date fill in the entire area of the magnifying window. The movement does not look to be made of different colored wheels, and the window on the backplate is always a dead giveaway right off the bat, that the watch is a fake.

Scott


----------



## acpeacemaker (Jan 31, 2016)

Wow Scott, 
Thank you for that very informative post, as well as everyone else. I think I learned more about them then I wanted. Lol :lol: I hope this thread can help another. Now I want to go looking. :lol: 

As always you guys are the best,
Andrew


----------



## nickvc (Jan 31, 2016)

A lot of fake Rolex watches use the Seiko movement which is very good but can't really match the real Rolex action, as has been said earlier real watches the hand sweeps not ticks, nearly all fakes fail that test if only slightly.


----------



## Chiptech81 (Feb 2, 2016)

It's a fake 100%

The picture with the back cover off showing the movement, there is a white plastic support spacer to hold the dial in place. Real rolex don't have these, also I'm positive that rolex never made a watch with a clear back.


----------



## rickbb (Feb 3, 2016)

I vote fake also for 2 reasons. 

The machining on the inside is very crude, lots of tool marks and scratches, only a $2 watch would be like that. 

Also if anyone lost a real $20,000 watch don't you think they would turn over heaven and earth to find it, post rewards, etc.?


----------



## justinhcase (Feb 3, 2016)

[stt][/stt]If we are taking opinion's.It is only good to take to a dishonest card game.
If you have to look at that thing twice you should start trying to trade a commodity of lesser value until you have improved your instinct.
It is quite obviously a knock off the moment you look at the back,probably from the front if you put up a jpeg of the movement in action.
item's like this are designed to catch your eye and suspend suspicion for just a second.
A second to buy and you are stuck with a curiosity for a counterfeit display or you have to try and pass it off to an other chump.


----------



## upcyclist (Feb 3, 2016)

justinhcase said:


> If you have to look at that thing twice you should start trying to trade a commodity of lesser value until you have improved your instinct.


You might want to ease off on what at least reads like contempt and derision. I say this because I know that my words are sometimes taken the same way.

Nowhere did he say he paid thousands of dollars for this watch because he thought it was the real thing, he said he "found it on an outing last year". He's just asking opinions on it's legitimacy. For all we know, it was mixed in with a lot he's going to process for gold plating and cheap melee stones.


----------



## justinhcase (Feb 3, 2016)

upcyclist said:


> justinhcase said:
> 
> 
> > If you have to look at that thing twice you should start trying to trade a commodity of lesser value until you have improved your instinct.
> ...


I saw in the first line that it was a "Find"
But may be if any one looked at that piece for more than a minute and thought it was cosha a little derision will save them a lot of money.
People who can least afford to a gamble are the one's who tend to take the leap.They need a win so are more susceptible to making mistake's.
I find it very sad but some make a good living out of the fact using flashy watches like the one in question and junk stereo component's .all painted to look flash.
Having traded every thing from night club's to construction equipment I thought I was well equipped to dabble in the precious metal trade but Still found it hard .
The second hand car trade all seem like light-hearted liberal's to me now.
There are very little warning's about the pit fall's compared to the number of article that encourage recovery .
Best to use little test's like this before you have an expensive education else where.
Most of the real hazard's are form other traders every bit as caustic as NO2. in some cases.


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Feb 3, 2016)

justinhcase said:


> I saw in the first line that it was a "Find"
> But may be if any one looked at that piece for more than a minute and thought it was cosha a little derision will save them a lot of money.
> People who can least afford to a gamble are the one's who tend to take the leap.They need a win so are more susceptible to making mistake's.
> I find it very sad but some make a good living out of the fact using flashy watches like the one in question and junk stereo component's .all painted to look flash.
> ...



Perhaps if you took some of your own advice and didn't jump to conclusions because you only paid attention to the word "find".

Much of the information, most of what is posted and responded to is relevant information. When you post your opinion instead of facts intended to help you might risk sounding condescending. I too took your post that way, very condescending. Even posting what I believe is good information I felt bad. If I received material and found something I thought might be worth more than it's metal value, but was not sure, I might post here looking for direction, just as I might in a particular process I didn't know. I certainly don't expect someone to post an excuse because their response was worded in such a way that it sounds condescending. I also am not sure why your opinions on car sales are relevant, and I am fairly certain that the political connection was not needed.

Perhaps if you feel the need to respond to all those posts you might offer opinion, you instead offered facts, your posts wouldn't seem so offensive.

After reading the posts in this thread, if you are not able to offer any other information it might be best not to post anything at all.

I am giving my opinion now because you gave yours. I see this post as going on too long now, per Harald's posts about this type of thing. We should be adult enough to realize when we no longer should be beating a dead dog with a stick, or going further and offering opinions that are not useful. We should be policing ourselves, sometimes it is better not to say anything.

Scott


----------



## justinhcase (Feb 3, 2016)

NobleMetalWorks said:


> justinhcase said:
> 
> 
> > I saw in the first line that it was a "Find"
> ...


never jump to conclusion's.always come to a pragmatic approach based on my and others experience.
Sorry are you for one second trying to pose the position that that was a quality piece of any description??
would love to interact in an understandable dialog but for now I do not understand your position.May be you could clarify??
any one who has actually owned a Rolex would laugh there head off to this discussion.
I wear a CWC G10 my self.much better use of resources and had it on since 1995.


----------



## UncleBenBen (Feb 3, 2016)

justinhcase said:


> pose the position that that was a quality piece of any description??



Nobody, at least in the posts I've read, ever claimed the watch to be quality.

The man just was asking if the watch he happened upon on some far flung mountain could be a real Rolex. All responses were fairly helpful in pointing to the reasons why it probably wasn't real. And pretty sure that those responses were appreciated. Probably by more than just the OP. 

Until your post, where once again you felt the need to warn everybody that everyone is a crook.

I know this post has nothing to do with the thread either, just felt the need to say dude! Calm down. Not everybody is a scam artist.


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Feb 3, 2016)

justinhcase said:


> never jump to conclusion's.always come to a pragmatic approach based on my and others experience.
> Sorry are you for one second trying to pose the position that that was a quality piece of any description??
> would love to interact in an understandable dialog but for now I do not understand your position.May be you could clarify??
> any one who has actually owned a Rolex would laugh there head off to this discussion.
> I wear a CWC G10 my self.much better use of resources and had it on since 1995.



I am not sure why the type of watch you wear is relevant, or relates to anything in this thread. I said what I thought needed to be said. If you want to continue this, you can message me. I don't feel that need but if you need closure I will entertain you until it becomes clear for you, or to me that it never will be clear to you. I feel bad you are finding it so difficult to understand, but I think it more appropriate to continue any discussion via private message.

Scott


----------



## jeneje (Feb 4, 2016)

IMHO, this thread should be locked. There is nothing else to be gained from it. What a shame!! :roll: 

Ken


----------



## MarcoP (Feb 4, 2016)

NobelMetalWorks and others, what a great posts. Apart from all the above, the Rolex logo at 12 it seriously wrong, looks like an open hand. The Swiss Made mark at 6 is missing and the ... crown? (can't remember the name of the crown to pull to change time/date) is definitively tick, you will find such thickness in chronos only.

Moreover with my little, rusty and old passion I had, I could say that hours and minutes hands with their perfect rectangular shape and flat surface aren't right. If perfectly rectangular: with a flat surface they should have an fluorescent engraving, otherwise the surface of the hand will have to be like a roof top (sorry guys for not using correct terms, but I had this passion when I didn't know English).

Marco


----------

