Reply With QuoteYes I'm Ray Nicol I have a shop yes where are we going here so lets get everybody else's names up here so we can see who's who because I cannot see what I've done wrong or what your accusing me off here
I may have made a mistake about the watch (see edit above).
However, the dial is undoubtedly the same one that was 'sold' by a Ray Nicol - seeing as you've contacted him about the dial.....
Yes I'm Ray Nicol I have a shop yes where are we going here so lets get everybody else's names up here so we can see who's who because I cannot see what I've done wrong or what your accusing me off here
So, is ray1 the Ray nicol who sold the dial?, and is he the Ray connected to watchestudios?
mike
sorry, I have slow internet onboard ship, I am not accusing you ray of anything, just wanted the bones to the story that's all.
Last edited by seadog1408; 20th April 2016 at 17:03. Reason: clarification.
Your watch is loverly ..... we all make mistakes including me....... always here to help anybody out if they need it you can email me direct raynicol8@gmail.com
If you'd have just said that you were the seller and that the new owner had put it in a watch and put it on eBay, then there would be no fuss.Originally Posted by Ray1
Anyway, I'm still really interested to know whey the dial is original/genuine
Yes then I forgot to take the dial of ebay (dumber and dumber) so then when watchstudios see this thread they contacted me complaining the dial was fake but it is not its 100% original Rolex anybody who knows me knows I don't sell fake
You have to compare a Rolex meter first dial with another put the 2 dials together and make the comparison I don't know how to upload picture's on this forum look at the way the print is done and look at the patina on the dial
To learn you have to look yourself and then find another to compare
So Ray sold the dial to Watchestudio?
Would that make the watch listed by Watchestudio a franken?, or is it legit because the dial is correct for the case, just not original?
Either way, their description below is not entirely accurate..... error in the listing indeed.
"FANTASTIC AND ULTRA RARE ROLEX SUBMARINER FROM 1966! 100% ORIGINAL, VERY VERY RARE, DONT MISS!!!!"
People who use quadruple exclamation marks are beyond reproach
So in your earlier quote of:
"The dial was sold to the new owner say 1 month ago (I don't know) and the new owner put it in his watch where he then proceeded to sell on ebay the original dopey owner who sold the dial originally did not take off ebay that's what I'm thinking Lol.........."
In fact you were the seller? So in fact you did know? I take your point that this could be a entirely honest mistake involving your sale of an original dial but your earlier posts do seem a little economical with the verite, something which tends to bring out the inner Columbo in several members on here, often leading to pitchforks and torches.
Last edited by Padders; 20th April 2016 at 17:18.
So here I am
Thanks Ray
To compare:
Certainly not terribly alike!
You don't know? That's what you are thinking?
But you do know because it was you.
Not sure why your first post wasnt simply "The dial for sale is mine, and the sale should have been removed as the item was sold to the seller of the watch inquestion" would have cleared everything up.
Is this so, can't see from the eBay listing? If it was indeed put up after the watch was, then it must have been after the sale, so not simply a "forgot to take the dial of eBay" situation.
Not saying whether the dial is fake or genuine, I know too little of Rolex dials to comment, but something is amiss in the information we have here.
Why don't we ask Mike wood or Jed see if they know me and can chime in to see if I'm cosha because I'm getting the feeling that some of you guys are unsure about what ive posted
Isn't it the case that many business sellers set up their listings to relist automatically if they run their course unsold*? If so a cursory search of Ray's completed items (which I can't be arsed to do myself I might add) would clear that up.
*edit - I mean, unsold via eBay, as the inference here is that an off-eBay deal was struck.
be diplomatic and not upsetting anybody here,,,,so who are you whats your name
I'm not meaning to be accusatory, and said clearly I had no comment on the legitimacy of the dial, or reason to suspect it was anything other than real.
I simply stated that the posts you made didn't help clarify anything, and to me, and clearly some of the other members, they read as if you had something to hide.
You say diplomatic, and not wanting to upset anybody. I don't see why any diplomacy was required, you had done nothing wrong and would have upset no-one just giving the full story from the first post.
I don't see who I am and what my name is has anything to do with you.
Because everybody started asking who I am and felt I was getting a little bit of stick here for no reason most people in the UK on here and collectors all over the world know who I am.
I don't do fakes and I don't like upsetting people so I try to keep a low profile but when my name gets dragged up like this it pisses me off
Best Ray https://www.instagram.com/raynicol1/
I don't know the eBay ins and outs, but if that is the case it would be a perfectly reasonable explanation.
To be fair, your name wasn't dragged up. Until post #28, it was all about the dial and the watch listings. You chimed in on #29 offering your views and after a few exchanges, the connection with your name was made.
+1. ???
Unless the serial number on the case is correct than it would be Franken, simply because the case backs were made in batches. Therefore just because it has a 66 stamped case back it does not mean the watch was completed and sold in 66. I have seen 67 case backs on 71 (serial number watches).
However the vast majority of Subs of that era are not 100% - replacement dials, hand sets, straps, crowns and of course inserts are very very common, but it does not really make them fraken unless of course if someone put a earlier dial in a later watch - that would be bad.
My research indicates that 67/68 was the final year for meter first watches. After that they became feet first.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
It doesn't have '66 in the case back - it has III.65
It still doesn't explain why, when compared to other 5513s of the same(ish) period, that the dial print looks quite different.
Nice detective work, chaps.
I know at least two parties who do not look good so far, let's see how this progresses.
it don't look good Lol....
WTF don't look good here.... are you kidding me ? do you know what your talking about here there is nothing wrong with the dial on the watch don't keep going on about a subject clearly you know nothing about
eBay has good buyer protection through Paypal but for these kind of items it's too much of a risk.
Just read the updates on this thread. The explanation sounds plausible, but Ray would've done himself a huge favour by making a clear statement in the first place to explain what has happened. On the face of it, seeing a dial and watch for sale at the same time suggests that fakes are around.
Ray, you can hardly blame people for thinking that, and you haven`t covered yourself in glory with your responses. Ever heard the phrase 'when in hole stop digging'?
A clear statement of explanation followed by a diplomatic silence would've been far more classy, and the whole thing would've been forgotten sooner.
Paul
I was just using 66 an example, but to be honest I would except a 65 watch to be Gilt anyway (most likely a Bart Simpson dial), but every day is a learning day.It doesn't have '66 in the case back - it has III.65
It still doesn't explain why, when compared to other 5513s of the same(ish) period, that the dial print looks quite different.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Stop digging are you joking, have a dig through this https://www.instagram.com/raynicol1/
????? Mate, you're still digging as far as I can see. I don`t see how quoting your instagram pictures like badges of honour helps.
Paul
Thanks Ray
To compare:
Certainly not terribly alike!Rather than insisting that your authority is irreproachable, why don't you simply address ed335d's worries in this post? Presumably the people who bought the dial already know all about you and your reputation, and are merely concerned about the single dial that they've bought off you. You explain why the fears raised are groundless and the whole thread will just melt away.
Call me direct or email me you can here is my email raynicol8@gmail.com I don't see what hole I'm in here its an original dial what I sold to a guy in London he stuck it into a watch and is trying to sell it what's the problem here.
Yes I should have explained from the start you are quite right but to ridicule me on a public forum with my name and where I live is not right.
But some of you guys have to learn a valuable lesson by not calling out fake so fast like some of you have its not fair especially when some of you don't know what your talking about that's why I put my Instagram page up so you can see who I am.
Is it right that some of you on here have sent me some nasty emails direct to my gmail account is that right ??? I too have a family and I don't need this shit.
This is a message to you guys who have sent me personal email's threatening me.... I'm in London 3 times a week you would not do this to my face if you know me.
wow,
so Ray is an OK guy, but is selling a fake dial on ebay (maybe unknowingly) to watch whatever and they stick this fake in a gen Rolex, and try and sell it?
now they have seen this thread and are panicking, and have approached Ray, who wasn't involved at first but now admits its him, and he is now trying to put the flames out with a water pistol?
is there anything I have missed?
Last edited by soundood; 20th April 2016 at 20:00.
You have some pictures of some watches and what appears to be a large lasagne. So what? I don't think anyone is clear about the point you're making with this, but they are clear about the fact that you made misleading statements and have ignored requests to back up your assertions with some detail from your expert knowledge.
Thanks Ray
To compare:
Certainly not terribly alike!
i have checked my notes (I did say I was sad) and it looks as if the "open 6" was used on the earlier meter first dails and the "closed 6" used on the later meter first dials - huge generalisation I know. i wonder whether the difference was caused by different manufactures i.e Beyeler or Singer for example.
For those interested it's well worth checking out the DoubleRedSeadweller.com site. There are some excellent photos of right and wrong dials.
Last edited by Andyg; 20th April 2016 at 20:18.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I have dealt with Ray many times and have met him at Birmingham watch fair too, from my experience he his a real gent, he has helped me out more than a few times and has even given me watch parts and accessories I said I would gladly pay for, he didn't expect any favours in return either. I cannot think of many fellow dealers who would do the same, there are some, but from the many I know they are few and far between.
It looks like Ray made a simple mistake here, he sold a dial and forgot to take it off of eBay. After the dial was spotted on another watch people thought the dial might be a mass produced copy, which I can understand.
I can also understand why Ray didn't want his name involved in a forum discussion accusing him of selling mass produced fake dials, forums can be a daunting place sometimes. If Ray believed the dial was correct I would trust him 100% I am also 100% sure Ray would accept a return if something was wrong with anything I had ever bought from him.
There are many bad guys out there in the watch world, for me Ray is not one of them.
Cheers Michael
Yes, Dood - Ray's letterbox.
Cheers
Foggy
Are there any reasons why the printing does not appear to be the same on the two dials shown above?
Are there variations in genuine Rolex dials if so what are they?
Mitch
Just checked my 67 metres first and the sixes are open but the watch the dial was put in (1.3m) should have had a gilt dial,the Barts came at the end of the standard gilt run about 1.4m before the matte dial run. Good write up over on the Rolex forum by Springer.
Thanks Andy, will check that out.
Do you have a link?
There are tons of variations between correct Rolex dials and inserts. For example there are at least 5 different dial types used in the 16550 white explorer including the uber rare non-hyphen cream variant (which I have). Unfortunately there are also variations between correct and fake dials/inserts as well, and I would bet every dealer has bought a lemon at some time.
It takes years to build the knowledge - which I profess I do not have.
Last edited by Andyg; 20th April 2016 at 20:45.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
So, for the novices (me), did we establish if ebayer watchestudios has correct stock, or not?
Thanks
Just to complete the picture, Watchestudios listed the watch as:
"SERIAL 13XXXXXX FROM 1966"
and the photos show S/N 1308434 and caseback III 65
Last edited by groyn; 20th April 2016 at 20:56.
In which case it had a later (than expected) dial. If they had the correct dial, it would have been worth considerable more.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
So, replacement dial but not franken. A 1.3M serial would be a gilt dial originally?
OK.....
1. dial is real...just bit heavy on the ink mixed with a tiny bit of lack of focus on the shots IMHO.
2. by looks of it Ray has sold it to some guy who has used it to complete a project and Ray hasn't delisted it.
3. the dial is the wrong dial to go in a 1.3. it should be gilt.
4. Rays heart is very much in the right place...he's just very good at digging a hole for himself :)
Resolution!
Posting Permissions
