RALAustin (Login RALAustin) from IP address 220.127.116.11
I would appreciate VRF assistance in confirming my take on this 5513, which I have now come to realize might be fake across the board (except for the Rolex parts I put into it after the fact). I bought this "5513" in early 2011 from a 2000+ posters on TimeZone (and member since 2003), who had positive feedback on Watchnet. It was my first foray into vintage Rolex and I bought it because it was described as a circa 1972 3.5 million series 5513 (my birth year). It was actually sold at a bit of a premium at the time.
I discovered serious operating issues after having it for a couple weeks but wearing it sparingly. My watch guy here in town opened up the watch and said the movement was "trashed". Hindsight is clear that I should have gone back to the seller immediately (even thought it was a month or two after the purchase), but I did not and instead paid for an overhaul of the movement, including a new bridge, new rotor, new balance and new crystal (all OEM Rolex replacement parts). The watchmaker also gave the watch a light polish. There was no discussion of it being fake, etc....
I actually really liked the watch when I got it back from the makeover, but subseqently did some more research on Rolex and 5513s and discovered the meters first dial was unlikely to be correct to the 3.5MM case (when I bought it, I had no clue about meters first vs. feet first). I chalked it up to a "parts watch" issue at the time, with an older dial added to a slightly younger case. I have a lot of watches, and the newest to me normally get my attention so I have worn this one from time to time but not really focused on it, until I decided I would try to sell it and started work on a posting.
Well, over the past couple weeks, I have found TRF, VRF and other postings that cause me to question both the dial and now, as of this morning, the case. As to the dial, I saw the recent VRF postings re the placement of the Swiss T markings and I found that mine are set inlaid between the markers in the same manner as a period 5512 COSC and a later feet first 5513. I searched and could not find a meters first non-COSC with the same footings. Today, I saw a TRF posting about fake 5513 cases and see that the E's in the engraved lugs of my "5513" from pics I took last weekend do not seem to match with postings on about shorter middle E's, and that there might also be an issue with the slanted crown protectors. So, I am now thinking I have a fake dial on a fake case. Wonderful. I had also long thought that I had a nice fat font bezel that came on the watch. Now of course, I question the bezel.
I am open to all comments. At this point, I am going off the premise that perhaps some of the parts of the original trashed movement and the Rolex parts I put into the watch are perhaps the only original parts. I don't have the watch with me at work and I have never opened it (it actually keeps time at about 9 seconds fast), but I am thinking I might try to open it this weekend.
I have been buying and selling a lot of watches over the last couple years and have had really good luck. Considering this one a total loss will annoy me more than it will hurt me financially so at this point I am just trying to decide if this is a total wash or I can sell for parts, etc....
Sorry for the long-winded post. Any assistance would be appreciated.
Yes *totally* bogus--a seller with that many transactions should never make a mistake...
August 17 2012, 1:42 PM
...like this. And if he does, he had better make it right or you can go straight to Watchnet "Deal Watch" and blast him.
I hope he does the right thing and refunds your money for this complete POS counterfeit. IMO, all "3-day Inspection Period"-type limited liability policies are completely null and void if what has been sold is a fake, especially a godawful one like this "watch".
Good luck and keep doing your homework so that the next Vintage Rolex you buy is real and happy-making and not a total bummer like this experience.
Re: His last post on Tz sales corner was just 8 weeks back. (nt)
August 18 2012, 7:27 PM
A short update. I emailed and PM'ed the seller and we talked Friday evening. Long story short, I have offered him a couple options to resolve this matter, and am waiting to hear back with his proposal. I will post another update depending on how this ultimately plays out, but I want to thank everyone for their comments and assistance.
The watch repair person may have some liability in this case...If the watch is a franken why didn't the repair person so note and let you know.....I have had the same thing happen to me, including asking the EXPERT watch repair man if it was genuine, of course he said it was and did the repair......
Thanks guys. Very dissapointing, but not unexpected.
I have reached out to the seller, and will see what happens. I don't want to post names, etc... in case this was an honest mistake or is made right, especially since I was planning to sell it before this all came about and I would have wanted a buyer to give me the opportunity to make it right if I had been the one having sold it.
I have no axe to grind in this discussion. I am not a dealer. I really feel sorry for what happened.
It encouraging to see the members crowd around and offer support.
But I have trouble with those suggesting returning the watch one and a half years later.
Most watches have a 3 day or 7 day or some stated return period. Some are no
return. I think 3 or 7 day return policy is reasonable. But one and a half years.
How about 2 years, or three years.
You know, I am beginning to get suspicious about that 5513 I bought in 1974.
Also, why should a watch repair person be an expert in the authenticity of rolex parts.
Most are good techs who don't give a rats ass about the font between the lugs and the
variations in the dials. They just want to fix your watch. If the hands and dial and movement fit, that is fine. Now if they have a large sign up saying "Expert in authenticating old ancient Rolexes", then I would be pissed.
I know this post won't be popular, but someone has to play the devil's advocate.
You shouldn't be buying till you have done your due diligence. BEFORE, NOT AFTER.
It has been said before, you buy the dealer.
Well, in the US the statute of limitations for most criminal acts is 7 years....
August 17 2012, 5:47 PM
...so I reckon the OP has time to burn in this case, i.e. an individual knowingly selling counterfeit materials while claiming they are genuine.
Also, if you bought a fake Monet from a dealer who had a sterling reputation in the art world, do you really think it would be caveat emptor if you discovered it was a forgery a year later? I don't.
PS: All this seller has to do is make it right--how does the passage of a given amount of time absolve him from doing the honorable thing?
PPS: Do a search for "Jason Latif" to see what kind of safeguard pablum like "buy the dealer" really is.
sometimes the seller doesnt even realize what is fake and what isnt.....bottom line buyer beware...I guess most of us dont know how insure what you bought is fully genuine....even the AD....and about the length of time please a fake is a fake no matter how long you have it.....there is just to much poop going on in the world no matter what your dealing with.....I see alot of watches here with the most beautiful patina in the world and all from the same seller hmmmmmmmm. and after the bezels are now super how here come the faded bezels....