Comments:
...what you gonna do Abel?
I am eager to know more
PS: @ Fumanku: Are you Eric KU?
Hello Fumanku...
... thank you for your explanation.
I understand you are guided by a good cause of ilustrating me and other fellow members here.
I will make check my watch, and claim the dealer if confirm your information. Other sources I checked mention that 6610 Explorers did came with honeycomb dials, but of course, I have not your knowledge or experience, so I can´t argue with you nor intend to do so.
Now, I showed two watches in my post above, my 1016 of 1965 vintage, and this 6610 of 1956 vintage.
In your previous message you stated:
Sic: "Nice photos, but both the 6350 and 6610 you show in this post have at best- refinished dials and at worst completely fake dials."
As I never showed a 6350 nor mentioned it, I guess you were referring to my other watch in the photos, my 1016 which you confused with a 6350.
You also state it got a refinished or fake dial, if my English is good enough. As some other Purtists member said in this thread, also experts make mistakes, and here is the evidence, you confusing a 1016 with a 6350. You do not explain why that 1016 also got an spurious dial.
I thank you so much for your comments. Cordial regards, Abel.
miss-spoke
Hi Abel-
I misspoke about TWO fake/refinished dials. I saw closeups of the 6610 dial and assumed it was a 6350 dial, then saw the side by side shots which you labeled as 6610. In haste I thought they were two separate watches when in fact they are the same.
I will say that the 1016 is absolutely fine in my eyes, nothing wrong with it. I do still however think that the other one is definitely "no good".
PS: To my knowledge the 6610 NEVER came with a honeycomb dial. The earliest version is the glossy gilt one with the red depth rating. I think AQ is mistaken in saying there was a honeycomb variant. If you search to the end of the internet, I don't think you will find another example besides yours. (If you google "Rolex 6610 honeycomb" the sales page for your watch is the first thing to come up...)
Best
Eric
6610 with honeycomb
I have never seen one either. I also agree that the earliest 6610s came with the red depth writing....however, in the late 1950s there is some evidence to suggest that some 6610s had honeycomb dials. Skeet and Urul, page 78 clearly states that the 6610 was the last Explorer to be fitted with the honeycomb dial. The problem with the book is the pictures are not real watches as far as i know...just images. But there is clearly a question-mark here.
Is it reasonable to say that, beyond doubt, no 6610 had honeycomb dial? I certainly would not feel comfortable saying that.
Regarding the other details that Eric suggests on the colour of the print, shape of the coronet and type of Rolex etc etc..... I just don't know. If there were really so few honeycombs put on the Explorer, then how do we really know what the baseline reference is for an original honeycomb 6610? How do we know what type of serif was applied. Just look at the 1680 red sub for all the variants on writing for the same watch but with different dial....My point is, Ku may well be correct, but wouldn't it be nice to have the evidence of a known original that could be used a a baseline for comparison?
If the luminous material can be shown to be identical to many asian fakes, then THAT is a big deal and merits concern. That would certainly worry me....and Abel maybe there are ways of determining if that is the case.
Eric, thanks for imparting your thoughts and suggestions about the watch.
I'll be more clear here....
Rolex NEVER made a 6610 with a honeycomb dial, and this particular example has characteristics as I pointed out that would NOT be correct for any Rolex of that era or any era.
While the Skeet and Url book provides a good baseline of info for the novice collector, it is not by any means the be all and end all, and has some mistakes and nuggets of misinformation, this being a prime example. Clearly when AQ mentioned that line in the auction that Abel indicated, they quoted it from this source.
On a side note, anyone else here find it interesting that after publishing what may consider to be the "bible" of vintage Rolex, that Martin Skeet and Nick Urul have basically disappeared? Chatting with other industry people, no one has even heard of them besides for the book. They are not dealers nor are they famous collectors, which begs the question why do we even listen to what they have to say?!? =D
Hello dear Baron...
... I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful insight and cautious approach to this dilemma about the honeycomb dial.
I read the book you mention as well as the comments in same respect in the Revolution Antiquorum catalog regarding use of honeycomb dial in 6610 reference.
By the other hand, the real color of inscriptions in my watch is gold, not yellow. My photos can´t reflect that.
I asume there is a possibility I was fooled by the seller, as I´m not expert. Now that the shadow of doubt was thrown, I´ll investigate my watch.
Thank you again for your comments, and receive my best cordial regards, Abel.
I read the book you mention as well as the comments in same respect in the Revolution Antiquorum catalog regarding use of honeycomb dial in 6610 reference.
By the other hand, the real color of inscriptions in my watch is gold, not yellow. My photos can´t reflect that.
I asume there is a possibility I was fooled by the seller, as I´m not expert. Now that the shadow of doubt was thrown, I´ll investigate my watch.
Thank you again for your comments, and receive my best cordial regards, Abel.
Dear Mr Eric. Ku:
...
Sir:
I never mentioned in my initial post anything else but my 1016, and my 6610. No other reference was named.
So, your confusion surely came with your haste to signal both watches shown by me as fakes. It seems your hand over the keyboard was faster than your mind here.
That´s were your own words. I can´t accept now your words about writing in haste, and confusing the references. This was a very audacious thing to do in your part, being you an expert, to state that in your first message referring to both watches in my photographs as fakes.
I do not doubt about your good intentions of teaching me and other members here, and I have no doubts about your expertise about watches and Rolex.
What I do doubt, is that ANY expert, can firmly state an object as fake, just by looking a set of pictures, taken in certain angles, with lights not using a polarizing filter, etc., and stating that the color of inscriptions of my watch are yellow, in comprison to those of your photograph are gold and that the crown in my specimen is "funny".
I can assure you that the inscriptions in my watch ARE gold color, but this color do not show in my pictures, taken with a simple old digital camera, and a home made lighting set up, and no polarizing filter.
By the other hand, you show a picture which could be treated with photoshop or not. I don´t know that detail.
I don´t know how to use photoshop, and never had treated any of my pictures with a PC program. They are published just as taken with my simple camera. (a Nikon Coolpix 3.5 pixels of c. 2003 vintage)
I feel that in the few months of my participation in this Great Forum, I have shown my good faith and good intentions of enjoying and having a good time here, my good manners, and that I enjoy so much my passion for writing and watches, and my long standing with the Rolex brand, after more than 45 year of wearing them (not collecting).
Also my intention of making feel well, to have a good time, and to enjoy the reading, to any other people in this Forum, who give their time to read what I present here.
Now, this thread, which had those good intentions, was ruined with a discussion from your accusation for BOTH my watches being fakes, and your affirmations which are so difficult to acertain, regarding if 6610 ever had a honeycomb dial, contradicting some bibliographic sources, or your affirmation that this watch is a fake.
You already threw the shadow of doubt over my two watches, though you now try to retract about my 1016, which by the way, was already shown previously in another post some weeks ago.
Look Mr. Eric: I´m an old man, and a gentleman and well educated one.
Should I had any doubt about the dial of any of the many wonderful watches you show and offer for sale in your site, I would elect to contact you by PM to ask for clarification, instead of using the thread of some other coleague to show my doubts. I feel this is what gentlemen do.
With all respect, I kindly request you to finish this discussion here, as I feel it is not the place to continue it.
I send you my respectful salutes. Abel D.
Sir:
I never mentioned in my initial post anything else but my 1016, and my 6610. No other reference was named.
So, your confusion surely came with your haste to signal both watches shown by me as fakes. It seems your hand over the keyboard was faster than your mind here.
That´s were your own words. I can´t accept now your words about writing in haste, and confusing the references. This was a very audacious thing to do in your part, being you an expert, to state that in your first message referring to both watches in my photographs as fakes.
I do not doubt about your good intentions of teaching me and other members here, and I have no doubts about your expertise about watches and Rolex.
What I do doubt, is that ANY expert, can firmly state an object as fake, just by looking a set of pictures, taken in certain angles, with lights not using a polarizing filter, etc., and stating that the color of inscriptions of my watch are yellow, in comprison to those of your photograph are gold and that the crown in my specimen is "funny".
I can assure you that the inscriptions in my watch ARE gold color, but this color do not show in my pictures, taken with a simple old digital camera, and a home made lighting set up, and no polarizing filter.
By the other hand, you show a picture which could be treated with photoshop or not. I don´t know that detail.
I don´t know how to use photoshop, and never had treated any of my pictures with a PC program. They are published just as taken with my simple camera. (a Nikon Coolpix 3.5 pixels of c. 2003 vintage)
I feel that in the few months of my participation in this Great Forum, I have shown my good faith and good intentions of enjoying and having a good time here, my good manners, and that I enjoy so much my passion for writing and watches, and my long standing with the Rolex brand, after more than 45 year of wearing them (not collecting).
Also my intention of making feel well, to have a good time, and to enjoy the reading, to any other people in this Forum, who give their time to read what I present here.
Now, this thread, which had those good intentions, was ruined with a discussion from your accusation for BOTH my watches being fakes, and your affirmations which are so difficult to acertain, regarding if 6610 ever had a honeycomb dial, contradicting some bibliographic sources, or your affirmation that this watch is a fake.
You already threw the shadow of doubt over my two watches, though you now try to retract about my 1016, which by the way, was already shown previously in another post some weeks ago.
Look Mr. Eric: I´m an old man, and a gentleman and well educated one.
Should I had any doubt about the dial of any of the many wonderful watches you show and offer for sale in your site, I would elect to contact you by PM to ask for clarification, instead of using the thread of some other coleague to show my doubts. I feel this is what gentlemen do.
With all respect, I kindly request you to finish this discussion here, as I feel it is not the place to continue it.
I send you my respectful salutes. Abel D.
Why so defensive??
I've already stated in my earlier post that the 1016 you posted is fine and the watch in question is the 6610. Be my guest and take it to any other dealer for authentication and they will tell you the same thing. Furthermore, you show your 6610 in successive photos on no less than 3 different straps. This would cause anyone to assume they are different watches at a glance.
You made the point to share something that you got here with the public, and now when you are told something you don't want to hear, you tell me to "end the conversation". If you didn't want the public scrutiny then you probably should not have posted pictures in a public place to begin with. While most would take my posts here as a good education spotting fakes that are getting increasingly better, you chose to take this as some sort of personal attack which this is not. Have we done business before? No. Have we even emailed before? No. Why would you think that this is some sort of veiled personal attack? This I cannot understand. The concern here is that you have been deceived by the seller, (Intentionally or unintentionally) and you should be most concerned about getting your money back. If anything, how do you think it would look if you posted a fake here and none of the forum members spotted it?! Being vigilant is the key.
I'll stop posting about this watch here if you'd like, but I leave a word of advice to you- No matter how hard you wish for something to be real- if its fake, its fake.
This message has been edited by fumanku on 2012-03-14 06:30:46
Dear Mr Ku:
I´m not in deffensive.
I accept what you say as an expert.
Yes, I shown the watch with different straps, and I explained in my text that. You didn´t read it.
What I feel (may be due to my manage of English) a very aggresive way in your words in your first messages.
I can´t accept your confusion about my 1016 you are trying to fix in following messages.
When I asked you to finish the discussion, is because I feel that it brings no good thing for the Forum, to discuss it here in this thread.
It is true we never exchanged mails or PM because we had never the need to. As a matter of fact, I didn´t knew you before this thread.
I do not wish to be bad mannered with you, nor to fault respect to you, on the contrary: I appologize if I did give this impression to you.
I´m taking the watch back to the seller, and will arrange this matter. I acted in good faith in purchasing it and in presenting it here.
I would never have intention to present a fake in this Forum.
By the other hand, YOU state it as a fake. You seem to shout in your last sentence "fake, fake, fake". No need to do so.
Is it really?
As our friend Tyler put above, once the doubt is thrown, the passion is killed. I hope you can understand this
as a collector, not as a dealer.
I again appologize if I offended you in any way, not my intention.
I again will prefer to end this matter here.
I send my cordial regards, Abel.
I accept what you say as an expert.
Yes, I shown the watch with different straps, and I explained in my text that. You didn´t read it.
What I feel (may be due to my manage of English) a very aggresive way in your words in your first messages.
I can´t accept your confusion about my 1016 you are trying to fix in following messages.
When I asked you to finish the discussion, is because I feel that it brings no good thing for the Forum, to discuss it here in this thread.
It is true we never exchanged mails or PM because we had never the need to. As a matter of fact, I didn´t knew you before this thread.
I do not wish to be bad mannered with you, nor to fault respect to you, on the contrary: I appologize if I did give this impression to you.
I´m taking the watch back to the seller, and will arrange this matter. I acted in good faith in purchasing it and in presenting it here.
I would never have intention to present a fake in this Forum.
By the other hand, YOU state it as a fake. You seem to shout in your last sentence "fake, fake, fake". No need to do so.
Is it really?
As our friend Tyler put above, once the doubt is thrown, the passion is killed. I hope you can understand this
as a collector, not as a dealer.
I again appologize if I offended you in any way, not my intention.
I again will prefer to end this matter here.
I send my cordial regards, Abel.
I think Ku meant your 6610.
You see as he say 6610 never (at least to his knowledge) came with honey comb dial only 6350 came with one. When he saw the your photos it's logical he think is a 6350 at first glance.
Upon careful inspection and reading your post then we know you referring it as a 6610. You did have more than one photo so we thought you have more than one watch.
I'm sure Ku would not mistake a 1016 as 6350. The difference is huge.
IMHO I would suggest you as for a refund or exchange of other watch.
Speaking of personal experience. It never worth the effort to hold on to a questionable watch regardless of genuine or fake. The rarer the watch the more so. Unless you are a dealer. In that case you might make good business out of it.
For collectors like us the doubts alone kill the passion. I'm sure you're not the same anymore ever since you read Ku's post.
You can read my experience here
1st encounter
Happy then
The Final Outcome
I am a happier man now.
I trust you will make the best decision for yourself.
Regards
Tyler
Hello Tyler, thank you so much for your message...
... Yes, you are completely right, and you have just described my feelings presently.
I´m not a watch dealer, or make business with antiques or any other object. I never sold an object of my collection, nor intend to do in the future.
As you say, the shadow of doubt killed any passion or enthusiasm I got over this piece, and I don´t intend to pass it to other person and take advantage of his good faith.
I can well arrange this matter with the seller, IF I can demonstrate that the dial is not original or fake.
What I can´t understand is that a profesional in this subject can run to the computer to write something so delicate in public, without first accertain what he is looking at his monitor.
It was very clear to me, that Mr Ku was referring to both watches shown in my pictures as fakes, nor distinguishing one of them was my 1016.
Of course, we are Human beings, and we all can make mistakes. Now, could be a mistake to affirm that a 6610 NEVER came equipped with a honeycomb dial? Can we accertain something when speaking of vintage Rolex?
These are things I´m thinking about.
I thank you for your kind message, and send my best cordial regards, Abel.
I´m not a watch dealer, or make business with antiques or any other object. I never sold an object of my collection, nor intend to do in the future.
As you say, the shadow of doubt killed any passion or enthusiasm I got over this piece, and I don´t intend to pass it to other person and take advantage of his good faith.
I can well arrange this matter with the seller, IF I can demonstrate that the dial is not original or fake.
What I can´t understand is that a profesional in this subject can run to the computer to write something so delicate in public, without first accertain what he is looking at his monitor.
It was very clear to me, that Mr Ku was referring to both watches shown in my pictures as fakes, nor distinguishing one of them was my 1016.
Of course, we are Human beings, and we all can make mistakes. Now, could be a mistake to affirm that a 6610 NEVER came equipped with a honeycomb dial? Can we accertain something when speaking of vintage Rolex?
These are things I´m thinking about.
I thank you for your kind message, and send my best cordial regards, Abel.
All in good intention. Abel.
As much as I want to agree with you. I hesitate to advice you in keeping this watch.
I know you might not want another soul to get damn by this watch(if that's true)
However if you don't voice out to your dealer that they might sold you a questionable watch. Your dealer might suffer further deception from the source who sold them the watch.
If I'm your dealer I would gladly take back the watch and keep you as a happy customer.
Regards
Tyler
I know you might not want another soul to get damn by this watch(if that's true)
However if you don't voice out to your dealer that they might sold you a questionable watch. Your dealer might suffer further deception from the source who sold them the watch.
If I'm your dealer I would gladly take back the watch and keep you as a happy customer.
Regards
Tyler
Thank you Tyler! You give me good advice and ...
... I appreciate your kind words.
I´ll visit the dealer of this watch soon, and will talk him about this matter.
I send my best cordial regards, Abel.
I´ll visit the dealer of this watch soon, and will talk him about this matter.
I send my best cordial regards, Abel.
What we said Eric, and very interesting...
...what you gonna do Abel?
I am eager to know more
PS: @ Fumanku: Are you Eric KU?
Hello ESE2A, thank you for your interest...
... You asked me what I´ll do.
I answered above: once the doubt is placed, you don´t feel the same about the piece.
I bought it in good faith to a persona from which I bougth several other pieces before, and I feel will have no trouble in return it. But first will try to accertain if the dial is not original.
Unfortunately we do not have real experts in vintage Rolex here, except for vintage watch dealers.
Thank you for your concern. Best cordial regards, Abel.
I answered above: once the doubt is placed, you don´t feel the same about the piece.
I bought it in good faith to a persona from which I bougth several other pieces before, and I feel will have no trouble in return it. But first will try to accertain if the dial is not original.
Unfortunately we do not have real experts in vintage Rolex here, except for vintage watch dealers.
Thank you for your concern. Best cordial regards, Abel.
I am inclined to believe Eric or Eric Ku may be right as he may have
seen sufficient vintage Rolexes to make that claim and if only he is the real Eric Ku that I have read about. Well no harm checking it further, if that's the case. This Eric Ku may also have lots of rare vintage Rolexes such as the Submariner cross breed Explorer on his wrist right now. Really, imo, no harm checking it further and this is not about who is right or wrong but to know that you have got the right stuff or that the seller is genuine and honest towards the intention of selling you the 6610. Just my opinion. Both still look BEAUTIFUL to me nevertheless.
Thank you for your opinion KCKL...
... I agree with you and I have no doubt about Mr. Ku credentials, expertise and experience.
He surely has accumulated a lot more of knowledge than me, and no arguing in that. He is the expert here.
Just a matter of points of views about what I feel are manners and manners of conducting and "confusing" the references of my watches.
Thing is settled for me, following his opinion and expertise, and I will clear matter with the seller.
I appreciate your insight and comment, and send my best cordial regards, Abel.
He surely has accumulated a lot more of knowledge than me, and no arguing in that. He is the expert here.
Just a matter of points of views about what I feel are manners and manners of conducting and "confusing" the references of my watches.
Thing is settled for me, following his opinion and expertise, and I will clear matter with the seller.
I appreciate your insight and comment, and send my best cordial regards, Abel.
Don't worry about it Abel. I wish you good luck and hopefully the outcome is a very
positive one, in your favour of course. Cheers.
WOW!!!
congrats on your acquisition. beautiful watch. wear it in the best of health!!
If I can have my humble opinion
I own a 6610 myself and I'm a little aware about this reference.
I also agree that 6610 never came with honeycomb dial or, in any case, I never saw one with such a dial which is typical for 6350 (earlier model).
About this specific watch it seems one of the latest fake coming for Asia even if a right statement should be only done looking the watch on the flesh.
But consider this: lugs are very badly over-polished (take a look at the tips) and case also is heavy polished in comparison of such a perfect dial ...... often the two things don't go together as time has elapsed for both in the same way.
As I've seen during my 25 years of collecting watches the "rule" is that perfect dials means perfect case almost always, and over-polished case means the watch was heavily used (and often dials shows it) even if well restored.
I hope this helps.
Hello Peppo! Thank you for your insight. This Explorer, as nice as it looked...
... is back in the hands of the seller.
Well, sadly, experience is also built with mistakes! I wish this lesson will help me in the future.
Best cordial regards, Abel.
Well, sadly, experience is also built with mistakes! I wish this lesson will help me in the future.
Best cordial regards, Abel.
Hey Abel,
I hope you got your money back, most of us have had this kind of experience, wit some more or less happy endings!... The vintage world is complicated and the Rolex vintage world is a real mine field and as enjoyable it is when you get a great watch, it feels equally soar when you get fooled!...This is why this kind of community is great to help as there are some very knowledgeable, helpful and nice guys around. Now I am also cautious when it comes to buying a watch and even more when it comes to serious pieces and budgets! the rule I try to follow is buy the buyer as much as the watch and get all possible reference and points of view, on the buyer as well as on the watch. Then, Rolex is extremely complex but at the end of the day the market is quite well self organized and prices well established so it is a good reference. In my opinion any too good deal or ultra rare/non well documented piece is to be dealt with the biggest precautions as most of the time there might be something wrong.
Best
Matt
Hello Matt! Thanks for your thoughts...
... and agree with you. When dealing with an upper scale of references, models or variants, there is always a bigger risk of making mistakes, specially if a newcomer like me.
Though I try my best, researching before plunging in the purchase, that move was done because I had bought the dealer first. I guess the dealer was surprised in his good faith too, as I have bought many other pieces before. No problem returning the watch. I have some other pieces I´was dealing with him in exchange, which were in reserve in his shop.
In this Explorer, though the case is a bit overpolished at the lugs, movement is original and corresponding with the model, as well as the serial number, everything seemd correct. Then, I have read both the book about SPort Rolex Models, and the Antiquorum catalog, which affirmed that 6610 did present honeycomb dials, which now seems to be a wrong information. Thus I proceeded to buy it.
Well, seems that I´ll have to look after a good 6610 again, and never to expect a honeycomb dial in this reference!! I learned well this lesson!
Thank you again, and have a nice weel end. Best cordial regards, Abel.
Though I try my best, researching before plunging in the purchase, that move was done because I had bought the dealer first. I guess the dealer was surprised in his good faith too, as I have bought many other pieces before. No problem returning the watch. I have some other pieces I´was dealing with him in exchange, which were in reserve in his shop.
In this Explorer, though the case is a bit overpolished at the lugs, movement is original and corresponding with the model, as well as the serial number, everything seemd correct. Then, I have read both the book about SPort Rolex Models, and the Antiquorum catalog, which affirmed that 6610 did present honeycomb dials, which now seems to be a wrong information. Thus I proceeded to buy it.
Well, seems that I´ll have to look after a good 6610 again, and never to expect a honeycomb dial in this reference!! I learned well this lesson!
Thank you again, and have a nice weel end. Best cordial regards, Abel.
Abel, you did the right thing.....
.....in my opinion. ;-)
This message has been edited by Peppo on 2012-03-25 06:31:07
P.S. This is mine by the way. ;-)
This message has been edited by Peppo on 2012-03-25 06:31:07