[BundyBear]

For what its worth, I'm new to luxury watches but that pip on the bezel looks off..
::
I'd find a different AD and take it there to see if they can give you an opinion.

Much too long, no need to read all that. I could tell from the first picture it is a fake. Period.

You can't compare with your in house MT movement as it is different.

 

[maroonandwhite]

Thanks guys, your insight is appreciated. My wife is sick of me telling her this story and picking her brain for investigative insight. A couple of clarifications:

-- I typed the original post in a narrative form from memory. It's something the lawyer I consulted asked me to do, and I've been meaning to do for a while-- I just had a chance to sit down an plow through it yesterday. I recalled my buyer's trigger that it was a replica being information he received when he took it in for a service. Going back through the emails (I've been going back and forth between all parties involved over the past 7 months) to get details for questions that were being asked, I read (and then remembered) it was Tourneau that spotted the issue when my buyer attempted a trade-- it wasn't a service issue. Nothing nefarious in this part.

-- I agree that the simplest answer is usually the right one-- Occam's Razor. In this case, I've been corresponding with my buyer and seller for a while now, and both seem like stand-up guys. I do not think either of them is the (knowing) bad guy in this situation. The likely culprit in my mind is the Pawn Shop (or whoever sold the watch to them). And even if I didn't know enough to spot it as a fake when I received it, the fact that the crown came off gives me a lot of pause in retrospect. However, any doubts that might have introduced were erased when the watch was serviced and returned to me by a Rolex AD.

-- If the crown thing was just a fluke, and the pawn shop/eBay transaction was completely legitimate, then I sold a 100% authentic watch to my buyer. The watch was not opened again until the attempt by my buyer to do a trade-up at his local Tourneau. Based on my conversations with my buyer and research on him, I believe this to be true. Would it be even remotely in the realm of possibility that Tourneau would swap out the movement? It just doesn't seem plausible.

-- Based on everything I know, either (a) I was sold a very high-end replica, and the third party service center my AD used just missed it and slapped an OEM crown on a knock-off movment, or (b) the service center was the culprit and THEY swapped out the movment, or (c) my buyer facilitated a movement swap to try to swindle me, or (d) Tourneau has a side-business moving Tudor ETA movements on the side.

Are there any other possibilities I should be tracking down?

I was extremely uncomfortable with the potential thought that I had sold someone a fake watch, so I erred on the side of refunding him. If I'm out $2000, so be it-- that's better to me than sticking it to someone that I'm 95% sure is innocent. My ideal situation would be to identify it as a fake from the get-go via the serial number, as that would clear up all doubt as I have that number accounted for from the time I received it, to the service, to now. Is there any way to do that? If my serial number isn't a legit number, that would do it. If my serial number is a "known" replica serial that turns up frequently, that would also do it. And if my serial number is legit, but was sold to Bob in Topeka, KS and has been serviced in that last couple of years at his local AD, again-- that would do it. My attempt to get this from Rolex was unsuccessful. Any sources/contacts you would recommend? Again, I appreciate that help and insight.

 

[BundyBear]

<snip>
If I'm out $2000, so be it-- that's better to me than sticking it to someone that I'm 95% sure is innocent. My ideal situation would be to identify it as a fake from the get-go via the serial number, as that would clear up all doubt....

That photo you posted in post #1 of this thread. Is that photo of the watch from the time you bought it? i.e. your wrist shot?

 

[BundyBear]

My wife is sick of me telling her this story and picking her brain for investigative insight. A couple of clarifications:
.

Yup. My wife would say "go sort your own sheeet out"

 

[maroonandwhite]

Dogbert-- the pic I posted is current, I took it right before my original post. The picture below I took when I first received the watch:

 

[BundyBear]

Dogbert-- the pic I posted is current, I took it right before my original post. The picture below I took when I first received the watch:

View attachment 14868343

Yeah, that for sure is 100% fake.

I asked if you have a picture from the very first time when you bought the watch from the buyer who bought the watch from pawn shop. If you can upload a picture from that time, we can call it as real or fake. In fact, you need to compare the watch that left your hands and this one you got back.

The order of things is just getting out of hand; to help me understand, it has done the rounds like this:

Unknown Man #1 --> sells to Pawn Shop --> Pawn Shop --> sells to Unknown Man #2 --> sells to OP --> OP sells to Buyer --> Buyer tries to trade with Torneau, is rejected --> buyer sells back to OP.

Let me ask you a few questions:
1) Do you have pictures to compare the watch before you sold to buyer and after you got back from buyer?
2) Do you have documentation that indeed Torneau rejected the watch or was it based on "good faith" and "trust"?

If, you can show us that the original watch you got from Unknown Man #2 is authentic, then you have narrowed down the list of suspects. Likewise, if the original watch you bought from Unknown Man #2 is fake, you have also narrowed down the list of suspects, which is either UNknwon Man #1, Pawn Shop or Unknown Man #2. In all likelihood, it is unlikely the Pawn Shop is smart enough to source fake parts to sell so I would eliminate them from the equation. It is more likely that they cannot spot a fake - that's all.

 

[maroonandwhite]

Thanks Dogbert-- you've got the timeline correct (I know it is confusing). The picture I posted first was from yesterday-- it shows the watch as I received it back from my buyer on Monday. The picture I posted next-- the one you said was 100% fake-- that was taken in 2015 when I first received the watch from Unknown Man #2. If you can tell from that picture (and I have others from that time if there's an angle that would further confirm) with certainty that it is 100% fake, then that would confirm that (1) Unknown Man #2 sold me a fake watch, and (2) my AD's service center is pretty negligent. And regarding that second point-- the AD did not repair the crown in their store, nor did they send it to a Rolex repair center. While the original paper receipt I got for the service was from the AD, when I called them back and asked them for the service information recently they put me in touch with the company that did the service directly, and they sent me an electronic copy of THEIR receipt. That may be a standard practice, but it surprised me a bit.

So absolutely, I would be thrilled at the confirmation from that picture (and I've added another one below from the same time) that the watch is fake. That will make me feel relieved that I didn't get duped into refunding my buyer, and allow me to concentrate on a resolution with Unknown Man #2.

Again, thank you for your help and "cold eyes" review of this situation!

 

[NebraskaZ]

Thanks Dogbert-- you've got the timeline correct (I know it is confusing). The picture I posted first was from yesterday-- it shows the watch as I received it back from my buyer on Monday. The picture I posted next-- the one you said was 100% fake-- that was taken in 2015 when I first received the watch from Unknown Man #2. If you can tell from that picture (and I have others from that time if there's an angle that would further confirm) with certainty that it is 100% fake, then that would confirm that (1) Unknown Man #2 sold me a fake watch, and (2) my AD's service center is pretty negligent. And regarding that second point-- the AD did not repair the crown in their store, nor did they send it to a Rolex repair center. While the original paper receipt I got for the service was from the AD, when I called them back and asked them for the service information recently they put me in touch with the company that did the service directly, and they sent me an electronic copy of THEIR receipt. That may be a standard practice, but it surprised me a bit.

So absolutely, I would be thrilled at the confirmation from that picture (and I've added another one below from the same time) that the watch is fake. That will make me feel relieved that I didn't get duped into refunding my buyer, and allow me to concentrate on a resolution with Unknown Man #2.

Again, thank you for your help and "cold eyes" review of this situation!

View attachment 14868431

Yeah. That bezel is definitely the wrong shade of red and the pip looks cheap and the lume the wrong color. Something with overall with the face/gilt/bezel makes the whole watch look too light/bright.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[maroonandwhite]

Also, here are some of the pictures from the original Watchuseek Classifieds thread that Unknown Man #2 posted. The serial number matches the serial on the service receipt and the watch I currently have in-hand:

 

[rbesass]

That watch is a fake. The dial and hands are not correct. Didn't come with the correct box did it?
These pics are from the Tudor book.
Look at the rose. It should be perfect, it isn't on your watch. Look at the center of the seconds hand. There is a hole in yours, there shouldn't be one. The movement isn't correct either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BundyBear]

Also, here are some of the pictures from the original Watchuseek Classifieds thread that Unknown Man #2 posted. The serial number matches the serial on the service receipt and the watch I currently have in-hand:

View attachment 14868445

View attachment 14868449

If the photos are what you said they are, then you can concentrate on Unknown Man #2. Is he a regular here?

 

[maroonandwhite]

Thanks Dogbert-- I sent you a PM and a link to the original sale thread. I'm not ready to out Unknown Man #2 publicly before I give him every opportunity to make it right. But I did want to share it with someone participating in this thread so they can vouch for that portion of my story, if you don't mind.

 

[hub6152]

Does the balance cock have the Triovis regulateur? The clone 2824's fitted to Tudor fakes does not have this. It's easy to change the part in the keyless works that has the date setting position so you can't be certain a Tudor is genuine/fake just because there's no date setting position. The Triovis device is THE acid test.

 

[BundyBear]

Does the balance cock have the Triovis regulateur? The clone 2824's fitted to Tudor fakes does not have this. It's easy to change the part in the keyless works that has the date setting position so you can't be certain a Tudor is genuine/fake just because there's no date setting position. The Triovis device is THE acid test.

You're right, this is probably the best test and puts it beyond a point of doubt. I thought the OP had posted a picture of the movement in the Rolex fake busters thread and gone back to look at it but he seemed to have removed it.

However, everyone else has already pointed out what is wrong with the watch, case, bezel, etc.

 

[BundyBear]

All, I have found out who the Unknown Man #2 is. Low post count, got to 100 and put the watch up for sale.

Lesson #1 - buy the seller. Make sure seller has good reputation and respected poster here. Shame this one.

OP, I hope that you get a satisfactory resolution on this and I hope your wife isn't going to make you wash dishes for the next 10 years. :-d

 

[maroonandwhite]

Thank you hub6152-- the regulator is definitely incorrect on my version (see pic below).

And Dogbert, thanks again for your help. I agree with your point re: "buying the seller". I definitely let my guard down based on this guy having a pretty visible/normal internet footprint (appears to be a normal suburban family man). Hopefully he will make it right-- I think establishing that it was fake in the pictures on his original sale thread will be pretty persuasive.

I will follow up with the resolution as soon as we reach one. Thanks again to everyone that added their thoughts/expertise here-- I really appreciate it.

 

[Jtragic]

It may be that unknown man 2 could be a legit person and got duped by the pawn shop. So yes, always buy the seller, but there are times when even the seller may be an unwitting vic.

In those cases, knowing a bit about what you’re buying would help too. No judgement on the OP, but the watch has some of the most obvious tells of a fake even without cracking the case.

I know WUS doesn’t like discussion of reps, and the fake busters don’t like noting what the tells are, but this is one of those cases where a problem could’ve been avoided if that info was more readily available.

 

[Schnipples24]

Wow what a fascinating case. Truly astonishing to me that the original shop that repaired the crown glossed over the fact it was replica. Somebody in that business should be able to identify right away it was not authentic and refused to work on it. So many layers to this transaction. Best of luck in recouping your original costs, I know the original seller seems like a stand up guy, but I've seen situations start off like this, and then slowly the original seller pulls away only to vanish after quite some time. Make sure you stay vigilant and get back 100% of your costs for this bogus watch.

 

[kiwi_kal]

Why should an AD refuse to work on a replica? To punish the watch owner for - intentionally or unintentionally - supporting a scummy market? Or are they contractually obligated to not do so?

Asking because if watchmaker is being paid to fix something, and not authenticate, then why would you turn down the business? Obviously OBs have a completely different incentive but am just curious about the outrage with the watchmaker who repaired the crown?

Genuine question out of curiosity - I do not own a replica or support that market.

 

[cb1111]

It may be that unknown man 2 could be a legit person and got duped by the pawn shop. So yes, always buy the seller, but there are times when even the seller may be an unwitting vic.

In those cases, knowing a bit about what you're buying would help too. No judgement on the OP, but the watch has some of the most obvious tells of a fake even without cracking the case.

I know WUS doesn't like discussion of reps, and the fake busters don't like noting what the tells are, but this is one of those cases where a problem could've been avoided if that info was more readily available.

Kinda-sorta. While I believe that we should explain the most obvious problems with a photo of a counterfeit (i.e. wrong pip, hands, whatever), I do agree that we shouldn't point out all the flaws - for good reasons.

The counterfeiters know exactly what is wrong with their products, but by knowing what a customer (or investigator) is looking for, they know how to photograph the product to obscure the flaws.

Remember that you need only only one flaw to declare a counterfeit, but absolutely everything needs to correct to declare a watch real.

Had the OP posted the pictures in the fake busters forum, then he would have had his answer before he bought.

This also explains why we are so hard on speedposters.

Now, back on topic. It seems like the counterfeit was most likely first sold to the pawn shop, so the final buyer is most likely innocent. It also sounds like the OP was duped.

So, the question is if the guy that sold it to the OP knew it was counterfeit when it was sold (and if the pawn shop knew it was counterfeit when they sold it).

Selling counterfeits is a felony (felony fraud/ theft by deception) and is, in layman's terms, no different than stealing $2000 from your wallet. Generally, there is a 5-year statute of limitations for federal criminal matters. 18 U.S.C. § 3282, so the OP needs to hurry if he wants a criminal complaint filed against the seller.

However, the OP really needs to get his facts straight.