Daytona movement help!

Bumped into an old friend today who had recently bought a Daytona which wasn’t running right. We took the back off and there appeared to be some water damage but even worse than this I said the movement didn’t look to be a Rolex movement.
I’ve gone all over the watch and all looks well with the case, dial etc buts really left me stumped. The bracelet code also seems off as it’s stamped “DE” which should be 2001 yet it’s an “M” serial which is 2007/2008.
He declared he bought it cheap so it’s either a super clone or a Frankenstein…
Any thoughts?

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c56892dcf5.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...201a22e3da.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...a102ca75a5.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e7fec8e849.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...7f40b242f6.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c51e411e1c.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m no expert but a quick google suggests the movement should look a bit like this.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...0ffccd36cf.jpg

I do hope your friend only payed a couple of quid down the pub for it.

A trip to the recycling centre is the destiny of this particular watch.

That’s a Zenith movement which does not match the dial of that watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lammylee

I’m no expert but a quick google suggests the movement should look a bit like this.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...0ffccd36cf.jpg

---

That's definitely a valjoux 7750 movement shown in your first picture, nothing to do with rolex I'm afraid.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amcneill

That's definitely a valjoux 7750 movement shown in your first picture, nothing to do with rolex I'm afraid.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Correct

I don’t think any part of that watch is genuine. It’s not even a particularly good fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slevin Kelevra

I don’t think any part of that watch is genuine. It’s not even a particularly good fake.

---

Oh wow!
Every days a school day!

However much the owner paid, it was too much! Total piece of crap, and water- damaged too. Watch belongs in the bin, can’t imagine a repairer who values his reputation and integrity would stoop so low as to sort it out.

I note that the fakers bothered to move the subdials up, at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amcneill

That's definitely a valjoux 7750 movement shown in your first picture, nothing to do with rolex I'm afraid.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I suspect it's a very cheap Chinese clone of the 7753. Note the press fit rotor bearing, as apposed to a spring fit and, alarmingly, there doesn't appear to be any rotor screw!

There’s a version of the 7750 that has additional complications to put the sub- dials in the conventional position, Chinese clones are available so this can be achieved by the folks who produce replicas at reasonable cost.

I know nothing much about Rolex or fakes,but even I can see thats a horror.

Ask him where he bought it and how much,unless he knows less than zero he must have know it was a fake.

That laser logo. :eek-new::eek-new::eek-new:

Just a bad fake, super clone. Hahahaha.

I only glanced at the dial and could tell it was a crock of sh1t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walkerwek1958

There’s a version of the 7750 that has additional complications to put the sub- dials in the conventional position, Chinese clones are available so this can be achieved by the folks who produce replicas at reasonable cost.

---

Those movements place the sub dials in line with 9-3, so in the Zenith Daytona position, but this one has the sub dials slightly higher as Der Amf has noted above and they're in the 4130 position, so I'd love to see it with the dial removed to see how they've achieved that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jocke

That laser logo. :eek-new::eek-new::eek-new:

Just a bad fake, super clone. Hahahaha.

---

So Jocke, having never handled a fake, super fake etc, il give you an explanation of why I thought the case and dial where ok but that the movement was bad. (I know now the whole watch is a fake).
The weight of the watch was spot on. I used to own an M serial black dial Daytona and the weight was pretty much correct.
The engraved rehault was spot on in terms of the crown bang on at 12 and the x finishing at 3pm and 9pm. I’ve never known a fake to get the engraving spot on.
The laser etching although photographed above wasn’t easy to see like some fakes. You had to shine a torch onto it and angle the watch to see it…like a real watch.
The case back markings seemed pretty legit…
The lume was green and appeared to match the Rolex lume…
The dial writing and font appeared to be legit, no glaring errors or quality issues
Granted the date code of DE threw me, that’s for a 2001 year I believe.
Bracelet off and the model number was at 6 o’clock (or 12 o’clock) whichever one, it was there. Also the serial number was at 6 or 12.
So from my limited (obviously) cursory glances, I was almost fooled into thinking the watch was ok with a fake movement. Now I’ve reflected, why in hell would it have a fake movement? Obviously the whole watch was fake 😂.
I suppose what I would take away from this is that after over 10 years of buying Rolex, every days a school day and I would still say, I think this watch would be classed as a super clone!

That is the thing with clones, they are designed to deceive, and unless you are an expert, they can be very hard to spot.

D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Genuine Fake Rolex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeti

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c51e411e1c.jpg

---

That's a nasty hand on the subdial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeti

So Jocke, having never handled a fake, super fake etc, il give you an explanation of why I thought the case and dial where ok but that the movement was bad. (I know now the whole watch is a fake).
The weight of the watch was spot on. I used to own an M serial black dial Daytona and the weight was pretty much correct.
The engraved rehault was spot on in terms of the crown bang on at 12 and the x finishing at 3pm and 9pm. I’ve never known a fake to get the engraving spot on.
The laser etching although photographed above wasn’t easy to see like some fakes. You had to shine a torch onto it and angle the watch to see it…like a real watch.
The case back markings seemed pretty legit…
The lume was green and appeared to match the Rolex lume…
The dial writing and font appeared to be legit, no glaring errors or quality issues
Granted the date code of DE threw me, that’s for a 2001 year I believe.
Bracelet off and the model number was at 6 o’clock (or 12 o’clock) whichever one, it was there. Also the serial number was at 6 or 12.
So from my limited (obviously) cursory glances, I was almost fooled into thinking the watch was ok with a fake movement. Now I’ve reflected, why in hell would it have a fake movement? Obviously the whole watch was fake .
I suppose what I would take away from this is that after over 10 years of buying Rolex, every days a school day and I would still say, I think this watch would be classed as a super clone!

---

What is the differance between a Super Clone and a Fake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bwest76

What is the differance between a Super Clone and a Fake?

---

I suppose you can get a “fake” on the beach in Spain for £10 with the resulting quality or you can pay £1k for a “super clone” which is a high end fake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The weight of steel fakes these days are similar enough to the weight of genuine watches to be un-noticeable in hand, so it's not a reliable way to tell.
PM fakes are another story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bwest76

What is the differance between a Super Clone and a Fake?

---

Caitlin Jenner Vs Thailand

At least it's better than the early 'Monarch Polfy SA; Gelena Shitinerand Stainless Steel 12600' versions :devilish:

One for the bin I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bwest76

What is the differance between a Super Clone and a Fake?

---

I've not come across the "Super Clone" name before.

When I started using the name "Super-Fake" some years ago, writing for or lecturing the jeweller / valuer / pawnbroker / law enforcement audiences, my definition for this was a fake whose movement (and case-back interior, if relevant) were also copied to a high level, such that the watch was intended to pass more sophisticated private buyers and even the weaker trade buyers.

A normal fake might appear convincing externally but should be obvious to most when opened.

The fact he let you take the back off his 20k watch might suggest he knew it wasn't real ?

Lots of red flags but it looks WAY too thick to be pukka?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beechcustom

Lots of red flags but it looks WAY too thick to be pukka?

---

nothing about it is right.

Just makes me realise what a rank amateur I am on the subject. Frightening stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeti

So Jocke, having never handled a fake, super fake etc, il give you an explanation of why I thought the case and dial where ok but that the movement was bad. (I know now the whole watch is a fake).
The weight of the watch was spot on. I used to own an M serial black dial Daytona and the weight was pretty much correct.
The engraved rehault was spot on in terms of the crown bang on at 12 and the x finishing at 3pm and 9pm. I’ve never known a fake to get the engraving spot on.
The laser etching although photographed above wasn’t easy to see like some fakes. You had to shine a torch onto it and angle the watch to see it…like a real watch.
The case back markings seemed pretty legit…
The lume was green and appeared to match the Rolex lume…
The dial writing and font appeared to be legit, no glaring errors or quality issues
Granted the date code of DE threw me, that’s for a 2001 year I believe.
Bracelet off and the model number was at 6 o’clock (or 12 o’clock) whichever one, it was there. Also the serial number was at 6 or 12.
So from my limited (obviously) cursory glances, I was almost fooled into thinking the watch was ok with a fake movement. Now I’ve reflected, why in hell would it have a fake movement? Obviously the whole watch was fake .
I suppose what I would take away from this is that after over 10 years of buying Rolex, every days a school day and I would still say, I think this watch would be classed as a super clone!

---

The reason I reacted was that a "super clone" cannot be revealed without opening it. Here we see a dial that has so many errors that a trained eye can immediately see that it is fake.
The thickness of the letters is wrong, the red color is wrong, the appearance of the crown is wrong, the rings on the sub dial are wrong, the laser logo is wrong, the position/size of swiss made
is wrong. This is enough for me, so calling this a super clone is also wrong, it's simply a bad copy.

I'd be interested to know what the OP's mate paid, although - I suspect it might have been an embarrasing amount.......................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackal

I'd be interested to know what the OP's mate paid, although - I suspect it might have been an embarrasing amount.......................

---

I think I was fooled into asking for my opinion. I’m confident he knew it was a fake all along.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jocke

The reason I reacted was that a "super clone" cannot be revealed without opening it. Here we see a dial that has so many errors that a trained eye can immediately see that it is fake.
The thickness of the letters is wrong, the red color is wrong, the appearance of the crown is wrong, the rings on the sub dial are wrong, the laser logo is wrong, the position/size of swiss made
is wrong. This is enough for me, so calling this a super clone is also wrong, it's simply a bad copy.

---

As above, every days a school day!

It would be interesting to know the full back- story, how and where he bought it, whether it worked OK initially, and how much he paid. Only way forward for this watch (apart from binning it) is to sort the movement out and get it running properly. If it was a genuine Valjoux movement that would be more feasible, but my limited experience of trying to sort out a Chinese clone was enough to put me off ever touching one again, you can’t get parts so you have to rely on genuine Valjoux parts fitting......some do some don’t!

There’s also a small issue of finding someone to work on it, as I stated earlier any half- decent repairer won’t be interested. If this got fixed it could end up being sold to the next mug, that’s enough to put me off touching it.

If you must have a Daytona, buy a real one. If you decide to buy a fake buy a good one.......not convinced such a thing exists!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walkerwek1958

If you must have a Daytona, buy a real one. If you decide to buy a fake buy a good one.......not convinced such a thing exists!

---

Well, currently in the Caribbean and I held a couple of very convincing ones th other day in St Lucia - $250 - $1000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris_in_the_UK

Well, currently in the Caribbean and I held a couple of very convincing ones th other day in St Lucia - $250 - $1000.

---

Chris, I bow to your judgement........if you say they looked good I’m inclined to agree! The ones I’ve seen have always been fairly poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verv

The weight of steel fakes these days are similar enough to the weight of genuine watches to be un-noticeable in hand, so it's not a reliable way to tell.
PM fakes are another story.

---

Now a days they make PM fakes with correct weights.

That’s a Bangkok market special!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAJEN

Now a days they make PM fakes with correct weights.

---

Supers yes, Turkish specials, no.

My biggest concern here would be that the friend was happy to pass off his fake watch as real. That would be a big red flag for me.

Super clone, LMAO.

More like a bag o shite clone.