Reply With QuoteReally like the blue tint to the bezel - wonder if its creative photography, or how it look sin the metal?
Really like the blue tint to the bezel - wonder if its creative photography, or how it look sin the metal?
It'll look like that. I had a 28 year old 14060 with original bezel, it looked that colour in sunlight.Originally Posted by JGJG
Really nice. Maybe I should put a bid in...
Yep, its faded that colour, I have a seadweller with a similiar insert although its slightly darker.
How much hot air?
Further reading is essential...
http://www.rolexmagazine.com/2018/06...ubmariner.html
Fascinating.
Really interesting, thanks for sharing
Interesting read, looks to be completely fabricated story. Judging by the pics after the fire, the only things salvaged where the case back and case, bit of triggers broom then.
"Triggers Broom" I wonder how many heads that will go over
I'd be careful of an article which contains the names Erica and Erika for the one and same person. If they can't get such obvious details right, it's hard to believe any of it.
How weird! I was walking past a couple of contractors in the street yesterday talking about this exact sketch."Triggers Broom" I wonder how many heads that will go over
The watch looks cool. I still don’t quite understand where the estimates for these watches come from though, each to their own!
Really!
The authenticity of the watch must be in doubt.
Last edited by ronin; 14th June 2018 at 07:58.
The article's been written in about 5+ parts so not hard to see how the mistake arises.
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
it's a really nice watch to look at, but I doubt it has anything to do with McQueen anymore, this is just a completely rebuild watch with some nice papers with it
https://timeandtidewatches.com/opini...ually-matters/
Thanks Haywood, the second article and updates are fascinating. And it isn’t easy to reconcile Erika’s “I always wanted Dad’s Rolex” with the auctioneer who says he had to convince the family to search through the rubble for it.
Leaving aside the question of whether McQueen ever actually touched the watch, what is now for sale? Let’s assume it’s the same case as pre-fire. Hands? No. Dial? No. Bezel inset? No. Movement? Hmm.
There are more original parts on the lovely GMT that Haywood posted recently, with its gracefully aged service dial.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Lot of money for a McQueen caseback
And no traces of dna left.
Thanks good read
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reading the stories about the guy being a porky teller I’d avoid that Watch at all costs!
I wouldn’t be surprised if he had it engraved himself (which is what the other stunt men are effectively insinuating). When you read the fact he lied about certain jobs etc and mcqueen’s fav was someone else, can you really imagine McQueen gifting him his own watch and calling him ‘the best’. That aside, the point made that this guy owned the Watch before McQueen was ever seen wearing one is also interesting.
Also back then they were relatively affordable tool watches. Would you really (if you were a successful actor) gift someone you considered ‘the best’ your old second hand Watch! No, you wouldn’t.
It’s all very convenient if you ask me.
Then you’ve got the fact the Watch doesn’t even exist in its original form anyway. Can you imagine a car coming up for auction and the auction house spouting off how it was some famous actor’s car but it was destroyed in a barn fire and all that’s original is the boot lid?
Seriously I think the thing is worth less than a normal one. If the engraving is fiction then it’s actual devalued it really.
I can’t stand these full of guff auction house smoke blowers, that guy even comes across like some slimey Bond villain.
I’d see it this way: it’s a sympathetic restoration done by Rolex, which looks good and we can be sure that all the parts are genuine. Like you, I wouldn’t attach any value to the alleged McQueen connections.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I fall somewhere in the middle. The auction house is overselling the McQueen side of things. The article seems intent on disproving the watch, even to the extent of character assassination.
That McQueen gave him a watch seems highly likely, the engraving is the same as the signed photo. Did that get added later, maybe? The sentiment was there though.
Why the guy is so sure McQueen never owned a Rolex pre 1970 is never explained?
you couldn't make this up..... oh wait someone did
Vintage Rolex market in essence, so thick with lies and fabrications, it's difficult to tell what is genuine and what is another fairytale to sell otherwise mediocre watch.
Posting Permissions
