Is this genuine?

[Thankyou4calling]

Is there a simple way of telling if a watch is the real deal.

I’ve been offered a Rolex. Lady datejust bi metal.

No box or papers.

It certainly passes the sweeping hand test and feels decent.

[R8Steve]

Take the back off it to be sure.

[Ligne]

Any Better pics available and do you have a model reference?

[mikeveal]

Here's an original, photo pinched from Chrono24:


Instantly we can see that the hands are different, the crown at 12 o'clock appears to be printed on your one rather than applied on the Chrono24 watch. The chapter rings are different.

The Cyclops looks like it may have a different magnification. I'm told this is one of the last reliable tells.
Have you examined the watch? Any signs of brassing (gold plating worn thin to expose base metal)? You won't see that on the genuine article.

Is the bezel different? And the bracelet (centre gold section end links near watch)? Difficult to tell from the photos.


Of course all of this could just be because the two are from different model years.

I'm not a Rolex expert.
Try posting in the Rolex forum on Watchuseek.

Edited by mikeveal on Friday 13th April 10:22

[Ligne]

I don’t think it looks right. The end links also look wrong. How much is it, they’re easy to get hold of...

[cbmotorsport]

Immediate fake, or a total bitzer imho.

The rehaut is engraved, but the watch uses tritium lume. 'T Swiss Made T'

2 features from 2 different eras.

[NDA]

The diamond mounting looks different too.

That lume doesn't look very Rolex either:

[/url]

Edited by NDA on Friday 13th April 10:32

[Hoofy]

Another check - is the cyclops square on or is it not quite aligned? I think you can guess what a real Rolex would have.

[steve2]

The wording does not line up the same as the second picture

[CAPP0]

The minute markers look different between the two watches too.

[anonymous-user]

Can you get the serial number? Pop it in to a decoder and find out model year as it seems to have some old and some new features on the face.

[TiggerBits]

mikeveal said:

Here's an original, photo pinched from Chrono24:


Instantly we can see that the hands are different, the crown at 12 o'clock appears to be printed on your one rather than applied on the Chrono24 watch. The chapter rings are different.

The Cyclops looks like it may have a different magnification. I'm told this is one of the last reliable tells.
Have you examined the watch? Any signs of brassing (gold plating worn thin to expose base metal)? You won't see that on the genuine article.

Is the bezel different? And the bracelet (centre gold section end links near watch)? Difficult to tell from the photos.


Of course all of this could just be because the two are from different model years.

I'm not a Rolex expert.
Try posting in the Rolex forum on Watchuseek.

Edited by mikeveal on Friday 13th April 10:22

The OP one must be a fake then, because it hasn't got "chrono24.com" written on the dial

Seriously though, it's impossible to tell whether it's genuine or not from that photo. I posted a picture of my friends Panerai, and some people on here were certain it is a fake, despite the fact I have seen the papers and the box. Sometimes manufactures make subtle changes to watches over time, so simply trying to compare by a photo is pretty impossible.

Edited by TiggerBits on Friday 13th April 13:06

[Ligne]

TiggerBits said:

The OP one must be a fake then, because it hasn't got "chrono24.com" written on the dial

Seriously though, it's impossible to tell whether it's genuine or not from that photo. I posted a picture of my friends Panerai, and some people on here were certain it is a fake, despite the fact I have seen the papers and the box. Sometimes manufactures make subtle changes to watches over time, so simply trying to compare by a photo is pretty impossible.

Edited by TiggerBits on Friday 13th April 13:06

I’ve seen fake boxes and fake papers...

[Voldemort]

TiggerBits said:

I posted a picture of my friends Panerai, and some people on here were certain it is a fake, despite the fact I have seen the papers and the box.

If you're faking a watch to sell on a beach in Thailand you don't bother with anything other than the watch. If you're faking a watch to sell to some mug for half of rrp you fake the box and papers too.

[AmosMoses]

I'm pretty sure its a fake.

Here's a real one with that dial:

http://www.watchfinder.co.uk/Rolex/Datejust%20Lady...

The dial on yours has the Rolex crown and then the indices marked, the real one does not.

On your watch the Lume is located in the wrong place, too far spaced out.

The setting of the stones is also the wrong shape.

The hands on yours are very wrong.

Your crown is wrong.

Biggest giveaway is yours has a case with the Rolex engraved on the inside a ala later models, but has a faux vintage dial?

If its isnt fake it must be a franken watch.

Bigger image with my marks on it:

[cbmotorsport]

TiggerBits said:

The OP one must be a fake then, because it hasn't got "chrono24.com" written on the dial

Seriously though, it's impossible to tell whether it's genuine or not from that photo. I posted a picture of my friends Panerai, and some people on here were certain it is a fake, despite the fact I have seen the papers and the box. Sometimes manufactures make subtle changes to watches over time, so simply trying to compare by a photo is pretty impossible.

Edited by TiggerBits on Friday 13th April 13:06

Are you serious? As I've already stated, the watch has an engraved rehaut, yet supposedly has a tritium dial. Rolex stopped using tritium about 7 years before they started engraving rehauts, and that's just the glaring fault with it. The end links are wrong, the embossing is wrong, the lume is wrong etc etc. It's snide, and easy to spot. You don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid, no offence meant.

Edited by cbmotorsport on Friday 13th April 14:09

[TiggerBits]

Voldemort said:

If you're faking a watch to sell on a beach in Thailand you don't bother with anything other than the watch. If you're faking a watch to sell to some mug for half of rrp you fake the box and papers too.

I am pretty certain if anyone posted a picture of a 100% genuine luxury brand watch, asking if it was real, the majority of posters on here would say it wasn't. Ummm, perhaps I will try it one day

[cbmotorsport]

TiggerBits said:

I am pretty certain if anyone posted a picture of a 100% genuine luxury brand watch, asking if it was real, the majority of posters on here would say it wasn't. Ummm, perhaps I will try it one day

I'm pretty certain that you're wrong. There are some very knowledgeable people on here. I'm still on the fence about you Tiggerbits, my Troll detector is screaming, but I'm not 100% sure.

Edited by cbmotorsport on Friday 13th April 14:28

[TiggerBits]

cbmotorsport said:

I'm pretty certain that you're wrong. There are some very knowledgeable people on here. I'm still on the fence about you Tiggerbits, my Troll detector is screaming, but I'm not 100% sure.

Edited by cbmotorsport on Friday 13th April 14:28

Do you mean by "Troll" somebody who says what he thinks, rather than someone who says things to please the majority. If so, I am indeed a troll.

[JatHanspal]

Plenty have provided reasons why it is likely a fake, or at least questionable. For me, another thing is the end links on the one you posted have the middle of the 3 bars recessed compared to the Chrono photo which has them raised proud.