the coronet doesnt look right - a bit too 'fat'
the spacing of R-O-L-E-X is slightly far apart (esp O, L and E, X)
the 'superlative....certified' looks alittle too thin compared to 'oyster perpetual' and 'day-date'
the other obvious giveaway should be the positions of the tritum dots, some are spaced with 4 bars behind, some 3bars behind
the coronet doesnt look right - a bit too 'fat'
the spacing of R-O-L-E-X is slightly far apart (esp O, L and E, X)
the 'superlative....certified' looks alittle too thin compared to 'oyster perpetual' and 'day-date'
the other obvious giveaway should be the positions of the tritum dots, some are spaced with 4 bars behind, some 3bars behind
btw the towel is also a fake
Don't know why you say that, still looks ok to me.
As for tritium dots, seen similar dials that were like that also. Anyway the dots look like relumed.
But towel confirm fake. Lol.
Pictures credit to VRF members.
thanks for your research
the coronet in your first photo looks different from the one TS posted; in fact, it looks different from your 2nd and 3rd photo
the coronet in your 2nd photo looks tilted in the clockwise direction (the middle stick of the coronet is not pointing at the 12'oclock position)
the 3rd photo is alittle small cant tell if real or fake
Don't know why you say that, still looks ok to me.
As for tritium dots, seen similar dials that were like that also. Anyway the dots look like relumed.
But towel confirm fake. Lol.
Pictures credit to VRF members.
Mate, if it's unoriginal, i really cant tell.
Dials like these are likely from the 70s and no longer produced after early 80s.
They are meant for 1803s.
Any reason you doubt the authenticity?
As mention, what do you see on the underside?
just want to be double sure that's an original, it looks ok to me, but then I'm no expert, I only compare it with other original pictures. Will post the underside picture tomorrow.
Comment