The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Including a photo of the piece you are talking about ALWAYS helps! You can learn how to post a photo here: How To Include Photos In Your Postings. 'For sale' postings, commercial solicitation and ads are not allowed. Links to Internet auctions are acceptable only if their purpose is to question the authenticity of a product or provide new clues for identifying counterfeit products. Links that appear to be 'shills' promoting the sale of counterfeit products will be deleted. Links to websites of sellers of counterfeit items are not permitted -- we know they are out there and do not need to be encouraging them by sending traffic to their sites. Privacy, additional policies and administrivia are covered in the Terms of Use.
: Why do you think so?
: This first link gives some brief message in a
: language I do not know how to read.
: This looks like an older model, but probably
: real.
: Actually, I think they do. But some ROLEX fakes
: are extremely good, so they can be extremely
: hard to tell. And the plastic on that one
: obscures so much of the detail that you
: can't see a lot about it.
Sorry, the first link has been removed, maybe because it has been sold or by the admin...
As for the other one, two things that make me suspicious:
The hands looks like they come from an old SM Dynamic (the one released around 1984) and did Omega make minutemarkings between "rings" like that on an automatic?
Another thing is that the text says "glass back" and the "IIII" marking seems so much bigger than any original, look at the distance between the "IIII" and the closest "claw".
Thanks
/J
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. | CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE |