Reply With QuoteCan't see properly on my phone but the bezel doesn't look like a fat font ..
I've been offered this nice looking 1680 in a trade and after checking few online sources wanted to ask the more knowledgeable here what they think about the watch:
SN starts with 225, from my research it has a MK 5 dial which could be in range 2.XX - 3.XX
What worries me on the dial is the uniform patina seen absolutely on every plot. Difficult to imagine a 1969 dial would keep such good condition. Hands have obviously been changed and some point as they give a different color shade than the plots
Can't see properly on my phone but the bezel doesn't look like a fat font ..
Looks fantastic to me
2.2mil should be a mf dial not ff
My red 1680 is from '70 and colour is pretty much uniform across plots, hands and pip so it happens. From that point of view no issue.
Yes, 2.25m is Mk1/2 territory, so alarm bell there straight away, though the 1570 was a common movement in a number of models around this time inc 1675, so its possible its had a movement change earlier in its life. What concerns me more is the dial... ideally would need a better / macro shot of the dial preferably not with min/sec hands at half past...
In fact, even just with those shots, for me that dial is not good, too many font inconsistencies.
The positioning of the hands is either extraordinarily unlucky in that it impedes our view of important printed parts, or the watch was deliberately set so as to make identification of the dial more difficult.
Mark I, II and III dials all define the depth rating in 200m=660ft format, so it's not one them.
Mark IV dials have the horizontal strokes of the "f" and "t" of "660ft" misaligned, so it's not one of them.
Marl V dials....we'll come back to.
Mark VI dials have larger "660" text (with closed sixes) and the position of the first "E" in "PERPETUAL" is placed differently under the "O" of "ROLEX," so it's not one of them.
So, it could be only a Mark V and is similar to that version, but is it correct? I can see a number of small differences between the Mark V examples I use and the watch shown here. With that and the position of the hands in mind, I would proceed with great caution. I would love to see the watch in person, or at least see better images of the dial. At the moment, I think the dial is not correct.
Haywood
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 19th June 2018 at 14:58.
Yes agree 100%, much better pics of the dial are required.
As others have mentioned, unless it's the plexi distorting the text there seems to be some anomalies with the positioning of the text.
Mark V & VI for reference (taken from the DRSD) site:
Just shows what a minefield vintage Rolex can be - and for me why the adage "buy the seller" for me is key. Can't add much more to this discussion but good luck with your quest
The hands are perfectly positioned to obscure the areas we need to examine!!
Pictures with the hands set at 8:20 will help, but I'm not liking what I see...
:-(
But the adage falls over if the seller is selling an incorrect watch, which he believes to be correct, in good faith.Originally Posted by bigfish
I am always impressed by the TZ expertise. To have Haywood and Mike on the forum is such an asset....
Kudos.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Kind comments above.....but where's the OP?
It is over a fortnight since he posted these images of a potentially five-figure GBP watch, asking for help. I believe that he received qualified, detailed feedback with a significant commercial value, provided for no cost in the spirit of a watch forum. Perhaps it saved him from taking a bad watch.
I do hope that the OP is not unwell, for I can think of no other reason why someone would ask for such assistance but not then return to the thread, where others had invested significant effort to help them.
H
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 5th July 2018 at 14:21.
#sad.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Posting Permissions