Rolex genuine?

[Jim Campbell]

A mate showed me this watch that was given to an acquaintence of his. Is it real? I don't recall seeing a sub dial like that on a rolex and i would have thought the COSC certification would be written somewhere.

[chris56]

Fake

[CardShark]

Properly nasty

[Miguel Alvarez]

Definite red card.

[sad61t]

I'd agree with the above responses that it's a fake (just from the poor execution). It looks like some weird mashup of a Cellini and a Sky-dweller.
* The dial and numbers appear to have been stamped as a single piece rather than an etched dial with separate bonded numerals.
* The date window inboard of the numbers indicates the calibre is smaller than the case, by some margin.
* But the piece-de-resistance is the duplication of centre and sub-seconds (with offset printing in the cutout, ouch). It would be really interesting to look inside it and see what the manufacturer had used - maybe a chronograph movement to get the duplicated seconds complication (now there's a rare feature).

In some ways, it's not a bad idea - a dress watch with full arabic face, stiletto hands and sub-seconds (maybe 15/30/45/60 to reduce clutter). Ditch the date as it only detracts from the design (and obviously no superfluous centre seconds), make the seconds hand blue to contrast the cream face and you might have a half decent watch.

[Jim Campbell]

Thanks chaps, nice to have my suspicions confirmed. It get worse every time i look at it. I only just noticed it has a second hand and a seconds sub dial. As i said to my mate who showed me the picture it's a bad sign that i instantly spotted it for what it is as my level of watch knowledge isn't really that great(not yet anyway)

[bobbybee]

And the most obvious thing is, even though it says so on the dial, that is not an Oyster Perpetual Date

Edited by bobbybee on Friday 24th July 14:25

[SVS]

If only all fakes were so obvious to spot! Some are much harder to tell apart from the original.

[GC8]

Possibly the biggest turd that I have ever seen!