Slim 0 Posted May 29, 2011 Ignoring the bezel insert - the fact that it's undergone a bizarre modification is not in question - do you think this one's a replica? Someone posted this pic on a general watch forum. I think the cyclops magnification may be a giveaway, but then again it could be an artefact of the camera's lens. No suggestion was made by the poster that it might be a rep. It's apparently "on loan from a mate". Interested to hear what you think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PatronSaintofChainsaws 1 Posted May 29, 2011 The datemag is terrible...it wouldn't be affected significantly by the lens like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
powderfreak 0 Posted May 29, 2011 Edit: No input yet Sorry. Nevertheless, its plain ugly. Any I agree, the cyclops is very strange... almost no magnification and it is not centered.... that plus the insert and bracelet... fake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
houndoggie 58 Posted May 29, 2011 Looks fishy to me. Not the correct bracelet, not the correct insert, not the correct cyclops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slim 0 Posted May 29, 2011 Well the insert is definitely a user mod either way, so that's not really a clue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slim 0 Posted May 29, 2011 So it's definitely not a genuine Jubilee bracelet, then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ska 11 Posted May 29, 2011 Surely fake. Easy way to tell. Does the Lume require charging? If so it's fake because it should according to the dial print be tritium which glows constantly but would make the dial at least 13 years old and would now be VERY dim! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnG 41 Posted May 29, 2011 link to the thread on the gen forum? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drhulee 0 Posted May 29, 2011 Surely fake. Easy way to tell. Does the Lume require charging? If so it's fake because it should according to the dial print be tritium which glows constantly but would make the dial at least 13 years old and would now be VERY dim! Unless it has been given a Tritium relume by Ziggy or Vac I'm not a Rolex expert, or fan, but I'd say fake. Mainly du to poor magnification and the fact that the cyclops doesn't seem to be AR coated like the gens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slim 0 Posted May 29, 2011 Sure: http://www.tz-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=172377 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slim 0 Posted May 29, 2011 I'm not a Rolex expert, or fan, but I'd say fake. Mainly du to poor magnification and the fact that the cyclops doesn't seem to be AR coated like the gens. Older gens don't have the AR coating, to be fair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnG 41 Posted May 29, 2011 I'm not a Rolex expert, or fan, but I'd say fake. Mainly du to poor magnification and the fact that the cyclops doesn't seem to be AR coated like the gens. Older gens don't have the AR coating, to be fair. Yeah, its only the new bigger GMT's that have date mag AR. Bunch of guys are suspcious of it now on the TZ thread. Wonder if the guy is just testing the waters to see if anyone would recognize it as a rep... You never know when these things show up on the gen forums.......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drhulee 0 Posted May 29, 2011 Gotta hand it to the rep manufacturers though, stick a 2893 in there, and what's the point of going gen and paying an extra 10k? Unless of course you plan on doing some deep sea diving Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mspangl 0 Posted May 29, 2011 100% rep Hillarious cyclope and magnification.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slim 0 Posted May 30, 2011 Gotta hand it to the rep manufacturers though, stick a 2893 in there, and what's the point of going gen and paying an extra 10k? Unless of course you plan on doing some deep sea diving Well - to be fair, if you had a real one, you'd know. Although to be equally fair, I didn't pay that much for mine, although that was the '80s and they were a bit cheaper then Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
powderfreak 0 Posted May 30, 2011 Check the last post on that gen forum, seems as if we will get some new members soon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pollux1 3 Posted May 30, 2011 Let's hope it wasn't one of our members that linked that site to here. thats not bloody smart at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ska 11 Posted May 30, 2011 Surely fake. Easy way to tell. Does the Lume require charging? If so it's fake because it should according to the dial print be tritium which glows constantly but would make the dial at least 13 years old and would now be VERY dim! Unless it has been given a Tritium relume by Ziggy or Vac I'm not a Rolex expert, or fan, but I'd say fake. Mainly du to poor magnification and the fact that the cyclops doesn't seem to be AR coated like the gens. Firstly the likelihood of it having had a tritium relume is tiny. Its almost impossible to find someone who will do that nowadays. Secondly, the triangle marker at the top of the dial looks like the modern rep markers. The gen markers from that period had thicker, more boxy borders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sconehead 5 Posted May 31, 2011 Looks dodgy, the replacement sub inserts pearl looks 100% rep to me, cyclops and crispness of font don't seem right for a gen either...any more pics? I can't quite make it out but the handstack might give it away for sure... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
myaz 3 Posted May 31, 2011 Powderfreak noted wrong cyclops on 3rd post. Took them 9. Yeah!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slim 0 Posted May 31, 2011 Let's hope it wasn't one of our members that linked that site to here. thats not bloody smart at all. I don't believe that person is a regular contributor here, might be a member though. Still, sites like this are easy enough to find anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
