(Login noiseboyuk) VRF Member from IP address 126.96.36.199
I guess that I may ruffle some feathers with my persistence on this subject I hope not!
I am following up a couple of earlier posts on the same subject 6542 Bakelite inserts.
As per my recent previous posts, I am desperately trying to find an original Rolex Bakelite and thought that I had been successful.
However, on posting the pictures (below) I received several negative comments on its originality but with no specific reasons why it was incorrect.
The only guidance I received was to check the Archives.
I have now spent a couple of hours checking the archives, only to discover that I am more confused than ever !
The bezel insert I have acquired seems to have correct details ie. peanut 8s, correct spacing on the tail of the 6s, correct shape on the inside peak of the number 4s etc. I realise that it is lighter in colour than most, but within the archives there is an acceptance that this may be a Rolex service (Mk 3) replacement characteristic.
So why, specifically, is this insert incorrect.
Hopefully someone may give me a direct answer.
I would point out that I am not questioning the veracity of the expert opinions, Im merely trying to educate myself. I am aware that there are several very respected luminaries in this subject and I bow to your excellent knowledge.
Im a relative newcomer to the world of vintage Rolex and Tudor, but have already collected a number of very nice pieces (please see pictures - not included are recent arrivals, 1977 1680 Submariner, Tudor 7928 transitional Sub and Rolex 6352 'Big Bubble'), hopefully there will be many more to come.
I am not sure why one would buy an expansive item and not research first the item extensively? If one wants to buy a Bakelite insert, I would assume that he would spend as a nephrite better part of a year investigating the product. Not buying an expensive item and now asking the forums approval. The tools are all on the Internet for new comers to ascertain knowledge in determining a fake from a real part.
In my opinion this site is not a valuation site per say..Once in a while we get involved as a group in discovering a problem piece, but for the past year or so it seems that every four posts especially involving the newer members participate in the capacity of " is this correct or not generic topics".
Not sure that was the prime directive of these watch sites..
As a relative newcomer to this Forum I must say that I find posts similar to Noisyboys interesting & these sort of posts make me return time & time again to this Forum.
It must be easy to 'miss the woods for the trees' especially when buying from a reputable seller.It is part of the learning curve.
I am sure Noisyboy greatly appreciates the help from the more expertise members of this Forum and I think that posts such as his should be welcomed.
But being a verification forum is not collecting..in my opinion..
October 10 2011, 12:19 PM
It seems to me that if we lean towards "is a real or fake" type of forum we lose out on the fun of collecting. For me part of collecting is the personal research involved, and then proving my findings to the forum. Not the other way around.
I wonder the liability one takes such as in the Bakelite post if the buyer uses a forum as a type of justifying for the seller to take an item back?
As I aforementioned, personal research in my option should be part of collecting not posting around what is wrong and right, and why.
Re: But being a verification forum is not collecting..in my opinion..
October 10 2011, 12:46 PM
I understand your points, and as a new guy on a forum that is pretty clearly old stomping grounds for a lot of you guys, I certainly don't want to step too heavily. On the other hand, as a long time collector of other things, I feel like part of being a good collector is sharing knowledge. As someone new to old watches, if I ask a question about a dial or markers or whatever, I'm hoping that those of you with much more experience and trained eyes will be generous enough to share your knowledge, not only in what you think about the item in question, but why you think it, and based on my experience collecting other things, I'd imagine you'd enjoy doing that. In return, I hope to gradually be able to contribute in a more giving way myself and eventually be able to give the same help I ask for to others.
I agree that researching things yourself is a huge part of collecting anything, but so is asking questions of those who are, simply put, better at it than you are. That's the spirit in which I, and I'd assume most other new folks, ask our questions. Anyway, that's how I see it.
(Login tuscanyrose) VRF Contributing Member 188.8.131.52
I think the rub here is that people want "verification" so they can buy something...
October 10 2011, 3:06 PM
I think the rub here is that people want "verification" so they can buy something and feel comfortable, knowing someone who has spent many hours and many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars to be the resident 'expert/s gives a thumbs up.
what if one of us, or all of us, who know right from wrong make a mistake? that is some pretty serious liability, not in the monetary sense, but on a public forum such as this our reputations are at stake.
remember the 3 CROC? 1655s of the 2000/1 era? red, DRSD and COMEX dials of the same? big auction houses often sold these items as real, and there are still collectors who own them and believe there are right.
It is easy for some who I am seeing lately to say things are OK, based on what knowledge, I don't know.
I agree that it is in the spirit of collecting to give info, but when someone is laying out $100k on a watch that looks good, from a good seller, I think the buyer should always beware.
We have some of the worlds best reading and giving opinions, free of charge. I personally spend hours guiding people on the phone giving insight and helping with the usual "newbie" questions. no problem, but when people just start popping watches and waiting for those of us who know to verify without holding the item, it can get dangerous.
it is easy with an obvious fake, like one of the earlier posts of that 6538, but if someone were to post some of the fakes I see every once in a while, a dangerous fake, made with some real and some manufactured parts, it is much harder to tell with a picture.
honestly, some of the newer, non vintage stuff I see in NYC often gets sold to unsuspecting dealers and are floating around.
we all want to help, but there is no substitute for good old fashioned research. back in the day, we did not have the VRF dial archives like we do now, which is quite frankly one of the best research tools out there, short of my own personal archives. cases are another story. I have seen engravings, cases with papers that will fool you if it were just looking at a scan. Now I know there some reading this who may think otherwise, but no photo can substitute handling, AND BUYING AND SELLING FOR MONEY. the money piece is the real risk. Oh, how i wish 10 years ago we had such knowledge and archives at our fingertips, it would have saved all of us money! lol!
handling these watches for years, day in and day out is the only real way to know what is correct, and thus worth the money.
just food for thought.
Noiseboyuk I would spend less on the (Mk,1,2 3) BS and more on the detail of the insert.
October 10 2011, 8:45 AM
if you blow up scans or photos of correct inserts and study the detail you will find the answer to your question. That is how I learned. Everyone gets to involved with this Mark 1-50 crap that they never really look at the essence of the item which they are defining. I checked out again the excellent archives on VRF regarding the Bakelite insert and the answer is evident.
Unfortunately, my request for verification has turned into a philosophical discussion on the responsibility of senior knowledge to educate - or not ?
This was not my intention.
However, as an observation. It does seem that there is a greater eagerness to educate on other non watch related collectors forums. I also collect vintage guitars and there would be no question of lack of assistance to verify, particularly on a high end ultra rare piece. As an enthusiast I would be delighted to assist where I could.
For the record, I have not blindly purchased 'bakelite' bezels on a whim in order to use VRF as a verification device.
The bezels I acquired were verified by the dealer who supplied them.
I followed the well used adage 'buy the seller', with the seller being a very well respected 'expert' in vintage Rolex (perhaps he has something to learn in the field of 'Bakelite ?)
I admit that I presented my pictures to the community for comment in the spirit of due diligence specifically not to make a costly mistake.
The advice to 'check the archives' remains (for me) inconclusive simply because there seem to be so many factors that distinguish correct from fake and many of the posts contradict each other.
Since I posted, I have had 3 email offers of 'correct' bakelite bezels from VRF members, all these offers were accompanied by photos. Guess what ? - comparing them to the archives they could also be 'wrong' in certain characteristics.
Maybe I should just give up on completing my 6542 project and leave it to the 'experts' to own these pieces.
I sympathize with your plight, but you're telling me the other bakelites you posted that turned out to be fakes were purchased from a well respected vintage Rolex expert!? I'm far from an expert but at least in your prior post, the one bakelite picture I saw I easily spotted as not being right from the first glance in a picture; and your expert actually had them in his possession!
Sure, "buy the seller" is all well and good, but when I part looks VASTLY different from every other bakelite confirmed to be genuine in other pics, doesn't that raise hefty suspicions!?