banie01 wrote: » One for the Rolex folk here. Need a steer and an idea of value, usual Rolex "fears" in play. Is it a gen 116334? What's it worth with no papers and only a watch register cert as provenance? I've traded with the guy who contacted me re this one before, but the Spidey senses are tingling on this.
Fitz II wrote: » Any other photos? The Rolex crown at 12 looks wonkey on the lower left, the magnification of the cyclops looks low and I cant find another one in a minutes search with a lume at 9. But all these may be fine...other photos?
Birneybau wrote: » How much did he want for that Rolex Banie?
banie01 wrote: » €5.5k negotiable but seems for condition and provenance not a great deal esp considering the risk inherent.
unkel wrote: » I have no idea of the values of vintage Rolex watches. But would you really pay €5.5k to put that on your wrist?
banie01 wrote: » No, but that's where the negotiable comes in surely? :P I'd make him wish he listed on adverts :pac: I'm not a fan of datejust in any case so I wouldn't miss it either way. The only dress watch I'll ever own is likely to be the Sólás or my astronaut on leather. Other than that it's divers and sports all the way for me
unkel wrote: » It looks knackered and ancient to me. Some people use the word vintage for that :pac:
banie01 wrote: » Yeah that's what struck me as odd, the mix of Roman and baton.https://m.imgur.com/a/7xFhNYJ I'm waiting on some tagged movement pics to be sent on but I'm giving this one a wide berth I think. Anyway my IWC has been located in Leipzig and should be with me tmrw
Fitz II wrote: » On those photos it looks better. They are not flattering photos, but thats ok I think it looks solid looking at them. I have not seen that dial configuration before and its a goodish price on a 6 digit 36mm. Datejusts do not photo well and the fluted bezels look muck in photos but spectacular IRL. Still if there is any doubt for that money you will get one with a better dial, the asymmetry of that one give me anxiety,
Cyrus wrote: » this is the lad, im assuming its 40mm / 41mmhttps://www.markworthingtonjewellers.co.uk/rolex-datejust-ii-116334-black-roman-numeral-dial.html thats how it looks prior to being run throught a cement mixer anyway
banie01 wrote: » Thanks for that Cyrus! Some difference between a fresh example and the one I've posted! Nice to put my dial query to rest too.
Fitz II wrote: » If its a 41mm then that is a good price no doubt.
Fitz II wrote: » Now back to admiring the seikos and casios.....
893bet wrote: » If it’s a six digit datejust it ain’t vintage! Is that the actual ref number banie? Edit just sent the link with images. Seems to be new looking clasp so assume 6 digit. It’s been worn anyway... Datejust are hard to date. Design ain’t changed a lot in 50 years and there are a million dial variations.
banie01 wrote: » True, but the more I think about it the less it's one for me. Deffo needs a decent polish and likely hasn't been serviced since it was bought so the total cost is too high for my liking anyway With a bit of luck DHL will be dropping me a little piece of IWC loveliness tmrw. Also, and I don't know how! It's not raised any customs charge Must be because they lost it for 6 fecking weeks!
Northern Monkey wrote: » Just on the Sinn wall clock, I’m near certain I read that the atomic clock function doesn’t work on it here when I was trying to get one previously. Can’t find anything about it now though and there is a slight chance I might have confused it with a posting on a us forum.
unkel wrote: » It's a quartz. Does it matter? That said, my mechanical Deepsea automatic is keeping better time than my Deepsea quartz wall clock from China I guess if you really want to know the exact time, almost all watches and clocks are useless and you will have to check your phone or your computer :eek:
unkel wrote: » I I guess if you really want to know the exact time, almost all watches and clocks are useless and you will have to check your phone or your computer :eek:
Wibbs wrote: » I have an old iphone 5 and for the craic and cos I'm mad, I left it running plugged in but in standalone no network airplane mode for a month and it was nearly 20 seconds adrift in that time. :eek:
Wibbs wrote: » wouldn't surprise me. That can be a fallacy with quartz and you regularly read especially from those who don't get expensive mechanical watches(though sometimes even from those who do) that "a 20 quid quartz will be more accurate than a 10k Rolex". The technology difference between them potentially can be, but not always, or even as often as thought. Just like there'll be a wide difference between a cheap lever action movement and an Omega chronometer movement, the same applies to quartz. A 5 quid plastic no jewel quartz is a world away from a high precision quartz like you'd find in say the Grand Seiko, or the current(and past) Longines VHP. Very different animals. Of my stable of vintage quartz, my Seiko calculator from 78 would be lucky to be under a minute or maybe even two per year accuracy, whereas my two Longines VHP's would be under a minute every five years. Big difference. The Omega Marine Chronometer quartz from the 1970's was around 12 seconds per year which as they noted at the time was the same range as John Harrison's portable marine chronometers. That Harrison's purely mechanical and portable movements could attain such accuracy is unreal. And do it in the 18th century. :eek: His large clocks could better that again. One newly built from original plans example was bang to the second of atomic time after a year.
Cyclingtourist wrote: » I dunno, reckon my €75 Casio Wave Ceptor keeps better time than any 10k Rolex or Longines VHP for that matter.
