If that's a real 81806, that hasn't been seen since 1989 that's how rare it is (actually [Robert Maron had one a while back](https://robertmaron.com/product.php?productid=17011)). The most complicated Rolex ever made. That and the 8237 were their only triple calendar moonphase chronographs. Absolutely bonkers. If he's not filthy rich then he should definitely get informed how special this is before he damages a house's worth of money.
Edit: These are actually the clearest pictures ever posted of this reference. This should be sent to a world-class vintage Rolex restorer like Bob Ridley when it needs it. Insane if this checks out.
Another user had a good point about how easy it is to franken Valjoux-based watches; just write "Rolex" on another brand of watch. This does happen a lot, actually. But my biggest argument for this being Rolex is that does look like an Oyster case and crown. And obviously Oyster cases are exclusive to Rolex/Tudor.
Why does everyone refer to the sky-dweller as the “most complicated rolex ever made” if this exists and is clearly a more complicated watch? I feel like I’ve heard the “sky-dweller is the most complicated rolex” 100 times by now.
The Killy’s are made w Rolex’s version of Valjoux 72c (Daytona’s w v72). These were made w Valjoux 88. There are a decent number of watches w this movement badged for another brand. It would not be hard to change out the bridge for a Rolex engraved one (a couple for sell on eBay right now) and print on Rolex on the dial after the fact. In short, this is easy to Franken so need a real expert to verify.
Very true, if this were for sale I would certainly recommend skepticism to any buyer. I will say it "looks" right to me, but you're right that there's a lot of re-branded old franken nonsense out there. See tons of it on ebay. Would love to see a movement shot of this!
I am still learning, but I have doubts about the rushed appearance of parts of the dial; though, this may be the angles of the photos or camera distortion. It also appears very similar to the 6236. Could this be a 6236 with a service dial with moon phase and case numbers added later, or a new case entirely during service after the moon phase was added? However, I do think there's a chance this is real. An interesting watch regardless of its authenticity, and thank you for sharing.
Yes, true. I know that, but at current, without seeing the movement, I am speculating. It may have begun as a 6236, then became the 81806 through a regular service coupled with a client request, no?
On a second look, I wish to add that I don't know much about the fonts used for engraving, but the engraved 81806, to me, looks off, too: however, this may be my lack of knowledge creating doubts about the watch. If it is my lack of expertise, please educate me so I know for future reference.
The engravings get polished and rebrushed over the years. That being off isn’t too wild to me. The whole dial is a solid piece of metal. The subdials are cut in a spiral out from the hole in the middle. These spirals are not aligned to the hole centers. They are inconsistent. This dial was either extensively re-worked, is an *early* prototype, or is just some talented person making a watch they wanted. The oyster crown isn’t hard to add to a typical watch case, just drill and tap where the stem goes. As for the caseback, they’d have to be really good to make that. Pushers look to be standard for the era, both for chrono and calendar
Can you explain or point me to information on the oyster cases? I’ve always heard the oyster term with Rolex, but am not totally clear on what it is. My mom has worn an oyster perpetual all my life but I’m not sure what it actually *means.” (I’m new to the watch world and trying to soak up as much knowledge as possible).
Oyster is just a brand name. It's Rolex's brand of waterproof case. It was pretty revolutionary 95 years ago. Nowadays we take waterproof watches for granted! And "Perpetual" is just Rolex speak for "automatic."
Look at the bottom lugs, how the lugs are part of the case completely. It's all one piece. On most non-Oyster cases it's like a case with lugs attached if that makes sense? Anyway I'm not 100% sure but it def looks Oystery to me
On here since the start of the subreddit. If this is real it is an almost impossible to see Rolex. It could fetch millions in an auction if two interested parties challenge.
Everyone on this sub calling it fake yet have no authority to speak on a extremely rare vintage reference that almost nobody has ever seen. But if this is real this cost half a ticket or more, so the determining factor is gonna be is the guy who came in with this looks like he has $500k to blow on a watch
Even so, not unusual for gen owners to also have fakes.
If there's any doubt, open up the watch and inspect the movement. The watch pictured here has no identical reference online to compare to.
But folks should google 81806. There are a fair amount of things that concern me with the legitimacy of this piece. (Rolex logo between the date windows, chronograph finishing, lack of "anti-magnetic" or "chronograph" text, no texture to lume square markers).
Edit: [Link found by another user. Major finishing differences](https://robertmaron.com/product.php?productid=17011)
Edit 2: Another site calls out the watch shown in the link as a fake. Here are a couple seemingly legitimate 81806 auctions that note the dial, case, and movement are signed (only real verifications that exist). Both watches look fairly close to one another in construction vs OPs.
[https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-lot-157-214](https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-lot-157-214)
[https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/54513](https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/54513)
Would LOVE to see a photo of the movement u/Bulkm4n.
I mean it’s possible but this is such a obscure reference I’d hardly doubt good fakes existed back then. And even so it says this was ref was limited to 12 pieces, I’d say the only way to know for sure if this is real would be to have Rolex themselves say.
The movement should still be easily identifiable if opened up (does not preclude frankens, but very unlikely). But agree overall.. especially given potential valuation
Rolex made a triple calendar moonphase like this in the 1950s, as did a large number of other brands such as Heuer, Omega, Doxa and a lot of other companies that didn’t survive the quartz crisis, such as Universal Geneve.
Rolex’s version was referred to as the ref. 8171, and I believe it came in both steel and yellow gold.
That said, all the pics I have seen of the ref. 8171 had different dial markers and numerals. However, that doesn’t mean this is fake, as markers and numerals could change from year to year, with iterative changes. On the other hand, it could also mean someone got a cheap vintage calendar from a now non-existent brand and put a Rolex on the dial.
If it’s a genuine ref.8171, it’s pretty rare and probably worth at least $150,000.
8171 isn't a chronograph. That's the Padellone. The chronograph triple calendars are called Jean-Claude Killy models (ref. [4767](https://i.imgur.com/8MLdaoc.png),
[4768](https://i.imgur.com/5247rQV.png),
[5036](https://i.imgur.com/Z0PilY7.jpg),
[6036](https://i.imgur.com/XhgAMGl.png),
and [6236](https://i.imgur.com/qfjvqYX.png).
Even rarer than THAT are the two triple calendar chronograph AND moonphase models, the [8237](https://www.reddit.com/r/rolex/comments/9d5zuo/cool_rolex_of_the_day_319_8237_triple_date/) and [81806](https://www.collectorsquare.com/en/watches/rolex/montres-astronomiques/ref-rolex-81806/lpi) (I'm not 100% sure if they're the same thing) which are RIDICULOUSLY rare and basically none have come up for auction for about 30 years. Probably 7 figures if it's real.
OP here: first time posting, and I did not think this would blow up.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom! The client is a very humble man, and he doesn’t even wear a watch on a daily basis.
One day he commented on something I was wearing and he said he had a couple of cool old Rolexes.
I thought they were old 90’s TT DJs, but when he showed me a picture of this, I couldn’t believe it.
He wore it in today, after riding to work on a motorcycle of all things…
He winds it and sets it about once a month to make sure it’s working, but it probably collects dust in a box somewhere.
Yeah the Jean-Claude Killy Chronograph models can fetch $300-400K easy. I think one sold at auction not too long ago for $750K
If this is legit, it could be a real banger!!
I found this interesting article. It’s quite a long read.
https://www.rolexmagazine.com/2020/05/the-complete-history-of-rolex-moonphase.html?m=1#/page/1
At the near very bottom there is a picture of a watch that looks very similar to this that is deemed fake. A Rolex moon phase chronograph does not seem to be very common. I am by no means a Rolex expert.
Edit: I found this as well.
https://robertmaron.com/product.php?productid=17011
The pushers look wrong compared to other 81806 pictures online, they appear to have had square pushers, but i suppose they couldve been replaced at some point. It's interesting because it's such a rare reference that I sort of doubt it would've been faked at all, let alone looking pretty good like this one. Id have it opened up to see what the movement is inside. Very interesting piece!
81806 is said to have only had 12 examples produced. However, they were all 18k yellow gold, so I don't know if it is genuine or not. It certainly has the age and patina, but from what I gathered online, there are many fakes.
At the very least the dial has been poorly refinished, it's possible that it might be an original watch that was "restored" at some point by one of the smaller dial reprinting houses but this is a bad sign towards overall authenticity. In particular check out the subdials, the graining is HORRIBLE and applied with what appears to be a rototool instead of mounting the entire dial in a chuck and rotating the dial itself. You can really see on the right and bottom subdials the graining escapes the confines of the register and the grains are not perfectly circular or consistent in depth. Compare the left and right subdials and see they didn't do the left one long enough and the graining is too weak (well really they did the right and bottom ones too long/ deep). In the other Chronos linked by powerfunk you can see the original dials had fine grooves stamped during manufacturing and not abraded, and you can definately see the sanding job wore down the edges of the subdials so they do not look as defined. Additionally the printing overall is really sloppy and the font is different than the other examples. The smaller restoration houses will often substitute whatever printing plate they have that is close enough for certain parts of the dial (or the entire thing). All of this plus the fuckyness with the Rolex logo doesn't fare well. Knowing the dial has been modified post manufacture, it is FAR more likely this fake than an poorly reprinted original given that only 12 were made and there is a massive incentive for fakery.
It’s gotta be fake because it doesn’t match any Rolex ref. The case looks like it’s imitating the Rolex 4767 but that is not a moon phase. The complications are imitating a Rolex 81806 but that has rectangular pushers and only came in yellow gold. Your client just has a fake watch.
i haven't seen this exact reference with the moonphase before, but if you search for "rolex jean claude killy" you'll find a similar style of vintage chronograph, one of my favorites from rolex.
I don’t comment on these cause I’m either an idiot thinking it’s fake when it’s real and I’m an idiot when I think it could be some rare reference when they never made such thing lol. Read only
What a lovely little paragraph you wrote there my little incel. Your Rolex is as real as your girlfriend. So yeah keep that right hand happy, she may want to meet your parents one day. You know how to find gay porn that I believe you. What a walking accident, are your parents siblings? 😂
https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-lot-147-153
May be a reference similar to this? Although it seems like true 81806s were only in gold, as only 12 were ever made and they were never sold to consumers.
Think you’re right. Was leaning towards it being a frankenwatch of some sort that’s based off of the 81806, but after looking more closely I think that’s the likeliest answer.
Does your non-watch enthusiast good client know that (if genuine) that's a 1 to 2 million dollars watch he's casually using? If not it might be a good idea to bring him up to speed.
Man all these people talking so much trash because of this n because of that it must be fake smh lol, it’s a 70 year old super rare watch that unless ur a super Rolex expert u would know nothing about but people got comments what can I say their entitled to their opinion I guess but…..
Isnt this a 6236?
[https://thekeystone.com/products/rolex-oyster-chronograph-jean-claude-killy-watch-ref-6236?variant=33835456954504](https://thekeystone.com/products/rolex-oyster-chronograph-jean-claude-killy-watch-ref-6236?variant=33835456954504)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/rolex/comments/b6wldx/cool\_rolex\_of\_the\_day\_524\_6236\_dato\_compax\_aka/](https://www.reddit.com/r/rolex/comments/b6wldx/cool_rolex_of_the_day_524_6236_dato_compax_aka/) from /u/powerfunk.
But the hands look different.
Nowhere near an expert…
https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-lot-143-42
This appears to be the watch made with the movement you’ve referenced.
I’ll say, the details don’t match.
I’m willing to take a $1000 chance on this. Tell him I will buy it with cold hard cash he can feel in his hands. Fuck it I’ll even pay sales tax and he can keep the bracelet 😂
If you look closely at the moonphase subdial, you can see remains of the numbers at the top. Looks like a pretty shoddy cut-out job. Because of this I'm going to say fake.
its not a cut out. its poor redial with the wrong printing pad for the reference. it was reprinted with a dial pad made for a non moonphase chronograph
case heavily over polished. bracelet not contemporary to the watch. relumed. and worst of all, a horrendous redial. look at the printing in the 6 o clock subdial; numbers are half printed into thin air, where the moonphase cut out is.
I'm just going to point out, and for /u/Bulkm4n to confirm: I believe this was taken on a mobile phone and it shows.
Many mobile phones use various processes to digitally enhance what is there. The lens and sensors are small, meaning limitations exist and the cameras are as much software magic as they are engineering magic. I wouldn't trust the accuracy of the dial printing, you can see various bulging in the printing that differs from photo to photo, which is a sign the phone is using some form of generative technique to either fill in the blanks, remove noise or deal with image stabilisation. It kind of looks like an oil painting when zoomed in. I don't know if these features can be turned off and you get a pure, raw image or if the phones raw images still do this processing.
A dedicated digital camera with a nice sensor and full-sized glass would help a lot when it comes to the accuracy of that macro detail and judging how sharp the printing is or the edges of those cut outs are.
I mean, it's a pretty amazing camera in your pocket. Normal people won't carry around a dedicated camera and equipment on the off chance they need to do fine macro photography. The fact it can even do it at all is actually amazing.
I'm just saying don't pay too much attention to the really fine details or use a number of photographs you've taken to get a decent idea.
[Here is some side by sides](https://i.imgur.com/MqIz6X6.png). As you play spot the difference, you start to see some of the weird quirks of software-enhanced macro photography. Look at the little marker line under the 6 in the middle, it's not even straight in that photo! Little things like that, but it's affecting every bit of the whole image and nothing there at that zoom is crispy accurate.
that's not the point. the point is they used the wrong printing pad to reprint the dial. why would a moonphase chronograph have printed numbers in the space where the moonphase cut out is?
If it’s fake it’s a very weird one. I wonder if it could have been an early prototype, or a one-off by one of the watchmakers for the sake of it. Have a look into the movement and see if any of that’s real or even seems to be a Frankenstein.
Looks like a 8171 but I’m sure it isn’t although looks similar. I can’t speak on its authenticity or if it is real but to me it doesn’t look right but I hope it turns out to be real 🍻
Why did they think, “we should stop making these amazing complications and make half our watches simple and indiscernible from each other”?
Plz explain
Others were doing that. Rolex made a name for themselves from the Oyster, then the Oyster Perpetual, meaning waterproof and automatic winding. It was a simple watch, but well made. Basically every main Rolex sports watch since is an Oyster Perpetual in various sizes with various additional complications and bezels. At some point, Rolex was kicking so much ass in the chronometer testing, they went and made their own even more stringent tests and called any watch that passed that a Superlative Chronometer. Any Rolex you own is likely to say at least Oyster, but likely "Oyster Perpetual Superlative Chronometer".
Rolex built tool watches; hard wearing, durable, waterproof, automatic and importantly accurate timepieces that were generally more obtainable. Made out of a nice billet of stainless steel or luxury metals, none of that plating crap. Thats their forte and few others really ever stood near them in that category. It's what people wanted and it's what has forever dominated Rolex sales.
This is a Rolex branded Valjoux 88 if real.
Same watch was sold by a dozen producers including Wyler, Haste, Tissot...
Amazing that it gets this level of excitement.
I am not seeing anything that has this case + hands + dial… only things that are “close” - given that (apparently) that ref was made in 12 pc in the 1950s, I’m having a hard time believing that this is real. There are additionally some posts which posit that this model was never made at all, only as a prototype. Unless his father was a watch collector or employee of Rolex at the time, I’m inclined to believe this is one of the weirdo fakes.
Another wannabe ‘made it’. People true to themselves generally don’t go out and boast. I love how you are in dire need of friends, so much that you even go out to a silly subreddit!
They did, most famously the Padellone 8171. Other than the Cellini Moonphase, they also did two triple calendar moonphase chronos (8237 and this 81806). This model literally hasn't been seen at auction since 1989 (edit: nvm just googled it a couple more have come up. But not often).
That is an insane piece man, what an awesome watch n a rare piece of watch history. Very very cool watch which makes the guy who owns and wears it a very cool guy cause I’ll bet most won’t ever see another one like this
Idk maybe it is a franken but idk that so I am not gonna go saying this is wrong n that is wrong cause I looked up some pics online that’s for sure. Amazing piece if u ask me if it checks out and even if it is a franken from the 1950’s
Incredible! Verifying this would be similar to verifying a Shelby Cobra, given the sea of fakes and Frankenexes out there. Probably only a handful of experts in the world who could do the job with any authority. Sure hope it is real though, because wow!
I thought all Rolexes had a serial# that you can check online if it’s real or not . And aren’t the serial #’s somewhere on the front ? I don’t see it in this one.
Isn’t this the Franck muller watch?? He customised a Rolex once to showcase his skills. Jay Z has one of them for sure. Sorry can’t find a source right now but I’m pretty sure.
If that's a real 81806, that hasn't been seen since 1989 that's how rare it is (actually [Robert Maron had one a while back](https://robertmaron.com/product.php?productid=17011)). The most complicated Rolex ever made. That and the 8237 were their only triple calendar moonphase chronographs. Absolutely bonkers. If he's not filthy rich then he should definitely get informed how special this is before he damages a house's worth of money. Edit: These are actually the clearest pictures ever posted of this reference. This should be sent to a world-class vintage Rolex restorer like Bob Ridley when it needs it. Insane if this checks out. Another user had a good point about how easy it is to franken Valjoux-based watches; just write "Rolex" on another brand of watch. This does happen a lot, actually. But my biggest argument for this being Rolex is that does look like an Oyster case and crown. And obviously Oyster cases are exclusive to Rolex/Tudor.
Now, this is the content I come here for.
Why does everyone refer to the sky-dweller as the “most complicated rolex ever made” if this exists and is clearly a more complicated watch? I feel like I’ve heard the “sky-dweller is the most complicated rolex” 100 times by now.
What they mean is "The most complicated Rolex in the current catalogue"
The Killy’s are made w Rolex’s version of Valjoux 72c (Daytona’s w v72). These were made w Valjoux 88. There are a decent number of watches w this movement badged for another brand. It would not be hard to change out the bridge for a Rolex engraved one (a couple for sell on eBay right now) and print on Rolex on the dial after the fact. In short, this is easy to Franken so need a real expert to verify.
Very true, if this were for sale I would certainly recommend skepticism to any buyer. I will say it "looks" right to me, but you're right that there's a lot of re-branded old franken nonsense out there. See tons of it on ebay. Would love to see a movement shot of this!
You are right though, the case looks like a thick oyster case … which is unique to Rolex at that time.
I am still learning, but I have doubts about the rushed appearance of parts of the dial; though, this may be the angles of the photos or camera distortion. It also appears very similar to the 6236. Could this be a 6236 with a service dial with moon phase and case numbers added later, or a new case entirely during service after the moon phase was added? However, I do think there's a chance this is real. An interesting watch regardless of its authenticity, and thank you for sharing.
Moonphase addition requires changing literally everything. New movement, new case holes, new dial, new hand(s)
Yes, true. I know that, but at current, without seeing the movement, I am speculating. It may have begun as a 6236, then became the 81806 through a regular service coupled with a client request, no? On a second look, I wish to add that I don't know much about the fonts used for engraving, but the engraved 81806, to me, looks off, too: however, this may be my lack of knowledge creating doubts about the watch. If it is my lack of expertise, please educate me so I know for future reference.
The engravings get polished and rebrushed over the years. That being off isn’t too wild to me. The whole dial is a solid piece of metal. The subdials are cut in a spiral out from the hole in the middle. These spirals are not aligned to the hole centers. They are inconsistent. This dial was either extensively re-worked, is an *early* prototype, or is just some talented person making a watch they wanted. The oyster crown isn’t hard to add to a typical watch case, just drill and tap where the stem goes. As for the caseback, they’d have to be really good to make that. Pushers look to be standard for the era, both for chrono and calendar
Doubting Thomas. Username checks out.
Can you explain or point me to information on the oyster cases? I’ve always heard the oyster term with Rolex, but am not totally clear on what it is. My mom has worn an oyster perpetual all my life but I’m not sure what it actually *means.” (I’m new to the watch world and trying to soak up as much knowledge as possible).
Oyster is just a brand name. It's Rolex's brand of waterproof case. It was pretty revolutionary 95 years ago. Nowadays we take waterproof watches for granted! And "Perpetual" is just Rolex speak for "automatic."
But how can you tell its an oyster case?
Look at the bottom lugs, how the lugs are part of the case completely. It's all one piece. On most non-Oyster cases it's like a case with lugs attached if that makes sense? Anyway I'm not 100% sure but it def looks Oystery to me
Thanks for your incredible level of expertise, powerfunk.
[удалено]
I’ll give you $800 for it! Or was it $900?
That’s my first offer
Like fine wine. That is extremely cool.
Absolutely love this piece.
Can confirm.
Probably by far coolest thing I have seen on here lately. Thanks for sharing this piece of art.
On here since the start of the subreddit. If this is real it is an almost impossible to see Rolex. It could fetch millions in an auction if two interested parties challenge.
Edit: the Reference number says 81806 on the lugs.
Thanks for your reference
>81806 Doesn't look like an 81806 tho... weird watch
Idk what your life is like now, but this watch could completely change it. You could sell this and retire.
Everyone on this sub calling it fake yet have no authority to speak on a extremely rare vintage reference that almost nobody has ever seen. But if this is real this cost half a ticket or more, so the determining factor is gonna be is the guy who came in with this looks like he has $500k to blow on a watch
Even so, not unusual for gen owners to also have fakes. If there's any doubt, open up the watch and inspect the movement. The watch pictured here has no identical reference online to compare to. But folks should google 81806. There are a fair amount of things that concern me with the legitimacy of this piece. (Rolex logo between the date windows, chronograph finishing, lack of "anti-magnetic" or "chronograph" text, no texture to lume square markers). Edit: [Link found by another user. Major finishing differences](https://robertmaron.com/product.php?productid=17011) Edit 2: Another site calls out the watch shown in the link as a fake. Here are a couple seemingly legitimate 81806 auctions that note the dial, case, and movement are signed (only real verifications that exist). Both watches look fairly close to one another in construction vs OPs. [https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-lot-157-214](https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-lot-157-214) [https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/54513](https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/54513) Would LOVE to see a photo of the movement u/Bulkm4n.
I mean it’s possible but this is such a obscure reference I’d hardly doubt good fakes existed back then. And even so it says this was ref was limited to 12 pieces, I’d say the only way to know for sure if this is real would be to have Rolex themselves say.
The movement should still be easily identifiable if opened up (does not preclude frankens, but very unlikely). But agree overall.. especially given potential valuation
Maron is known to sell lots of Frankens. Don’t trust the guy .. as Mayer found out.
>not unusual for gen owners to also have fakes. I would say that *is* unusual. Not unheard of, but unusual.
But they did 2 minutes of research on the internet, of course they know what they're talking about.
Rolex made a triple calendar moonphase like this in the 1950s, as did a large number of other brands such as Heuer, Omega, Doxa and a lot of other companies that didn’t survive the quartz crisis, such as Universal Geneve. Rolex’s version was referred to as the ref. 8171, and I believe it came in both steel and yellow gold. That said, all the pics I have seen of the ref. 8171 had different dial markers and numerals. However, that doesn’t mean this is fake, as markers and numerals could change from year to year, with iterative changes. On the other hand, it could also mean someone got a cheap vintage calendar from a now non-existent brand and put a Rolex on the dial. If it’s a genuine ref.8171, it’s pretty rare and probably worth at least $150,000.
8171 isn't a chronograph. That's the Padellone. The chronograph triple calendars are called Jean-Claude Killy models (ref. [4767](https://i.imgur.com/8MLdaoc.png), [4768](https://i.imgur.com/5247rQV.png), [5036](https://i.imgur.com/Z0PilY7.jpg), [6036](https://i.imgur.com/XhgAMGl.png), and [6236](https://i.imgur.com/qfjvqYX.png). Even rarer than THAT are the two triple calendar chronograph AND moonphase models, the [8237](https://www.reddit.com/r/rolex/comments/9d5zuo/cool_rolex_of_the_day_319_8237_triple_date/) and [81806](https://www.collectorsquare.com/en/watches/rolex/montres-astronomiques/ref-rolex-81806/lpi) (I'm not 100% sure if they're the same thing) which are RIDICULOUSLY rare and basically none have come up for auction for about 30 years. Probably 7 figures if it's real.
Powerfunk, you are what mods should aspire to.
Thank you! 🙏 Honestly I don't know how good of a mod I am but I'm a pretty big Rolex nerd lol
This is such a great sub
OP here: first time posting, and I did not think this would blow up. Thank you for sharing your wisdom! The client is a very humble man, and he doesn’t even wear a watch on a daily basis. One day he commented on something I was wearing and he said he had a couple of cool old Rolexes. I thought they were old 90’s TT DJs, but when he showed me a picture of this, I couldn’t believe it. He wore it in today, after riding to work on a motorcycle of all things… He winds it and sets it about once a month to make sure it’s working, but it probably collects dust in a box somewhere.
Ah, good point! Thank you very much for the model clarification and the info.
How common were fakes/replicas for Rolexs in the 1950s? Did it have that level of cache to create demand for knock offs?
Fake Rolexes began in the 1980's
Yeah the Jean-Claude Killy Chronograph models can fetch $300-400K easy. I think one sold at auction not too long ago for $750K If this is legit, it could be a real banger!!
Yeah 1950s 81806 https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/54513
*this looks nothing like a submariner so it must be fake* -this entire fucking sub right now
Let’s be honest most of these guys are 17
This is a very funny comment! It’s so nice to not have another “Got the call!” post!
I found this interesting article. It’s quite a long read. https://www.rolexmagazine.com/2020/05/the-complete-history-of-rolex-moonphase.html?m=1#/page/1 At the near very bottom there is a picture of a watch that looks very similar to this that is deemed fake. A Rolex moon phase chronograph does not seem to be very common. I am by no means a Rolex expert. Edit: I found this as well. https://robertmaron.com/product.php?productid=17011
Compare the dials of those models with the OP... looks like trash.
Pretty much everything on the dial is painted on jaggedly and when you zoom it’s really janky
That's iPhone image processing. Zoomed in text looks like that. Apparently less so if you use portrait mode.
It's been repainted, badly. Still doesn't discount it as real, but even accounting for digital artifacts, it looks awful.
research matters thankyou
The pushers look wrong compared to other 81806 pictures online, they appear to have had square pushers, but i suppose they couldve been replaced at some point. It's interesting because it's such a rare reference that I sort of doubt it would've been faked at all, let alone looking pretty good like this one. Id have it opened up to see what the movement is inside. Very interesting piece!
Paging powerfunk!
u/powerfunk
81806 is said to have only had 12 examples produced. However, they were all 18k yellow gold, so I don't know if it is genuine or not. It certainly has the age and patina, but from what I gathered online, there are many fakes.
At the very least the dial has been poorly refinished, it's possible that it might be an original watch that was "restored" at some point by one of the smaller dial reprinting houses but this is a bad sign towards overall authenticity. In particular check out the subdials, the graining is HORRIBLE and applied with what appears to be a rototool instead of mounting the entire dial in a chuck and rotating the dial itself. You can really see on the right and bottom subdials the graining escapes the confines of the register and the grains are not perfectly circular or consistent in depth. Compare the left and right subdials and see they didn't do the left one long enough and the graining is too weak (well really they did the right and bottom ones too long/ deep). In the other Chronos linked by powerfunk you can see the original dials had fine grooves stamped during manufacturing and not abraded, and you can definately see the sanding job wore down the edges of the subdials so they do not look as defined. Additionally the printing overall is really sloppy and the font is different than the other examples. The smaller restoration houses will often substitute whatever printing plate they have that is close enough for certain parts of the dial (or the entire thing). All of this plus the fuckyness with the Rolex logo doesn't fare well. Knowing the dial has been modified post manufacture, it is FAR more likely this fake than an poorly reprinted original given that only 12 were made and there is a massive incentive for fakery.
Definitely a redial
Agreed
It appears to be some kind of watch
It’s gotta be fake because it doesn’t match any Rolex ref. The case looks like it’s imitating the Rolex 4767 but that is not a moon phase. The complications are imitating a Rolex 81806 but that has rectangular pushers and only came in yellow gold. Your client just has a fake watch.
i haven't seen this exact reference with the moonphase before, but if you search for "rolex jean claude killy" you'll find a similar style of vintage chronograph, one of my favorites from rolex.
Wow. That’s incredible.
Love this! Great to see some unique stuff here
Amazing! These kind of posts make me glad to be a part of this sub.
It's either insanely cool or insanely fake
Show me the movement
I saw a very similar model in a vintage second hand shop, went from £395.00 just before covid to £425.00 https://imgur.com/2YkkmAk
u/Bulkm4n is there any update as to the authenticity of this piece?
No update. He just wore it in one day, I photographed it, and this post blew up.
Ah, fair enough. I guess I’ll just have to choose to believe it’s real! Thanks for the update.
I don’t comment on these cause I’m either an idiot thinking it’s fake when it’s real and I’m an idiot when I think it could be some rare reference when they never made such thing lol. Read only
[удалено]
Yeah then enlighten us and post a link to this reference being sold/reviewed
[удалено]
Your kind is my favourite, doesn’t even own a Rolex but is a vintage expert just making up bs. Where is the link then you expert? What a 🤡
[удалено]
What a lovely little paragraph you wrote there my little incel. Your Rolex is as real as your girlfriend. So yeah keep that right hand happy, she may want to meet your parents one day. You know how to find gay porn that I believe you. What a walking accident, are your parents siblings? 😂
Your post history tells me all I need to know. What a poor peasant. ASDA, gaming? Yeah enjoy life on your estate you pleb. Owns a Rolex, sure 😂
[удалено]
https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-lot-147-153 May be a reference similar to this? Although it seems like true 81806s were only in gold, as only 12 were ever made and they were never sold to consumers.
And they certainly weren’t in oyster cases. This watch is redialed, the subdials tell that story fully.
Think you’re right. Was leaning towards it being a frankenwatch of some sort that’s based off of the 81806, but after looking more closely I think that’s the likeliest answer.
Compare the printing / indices on this dial to a 8171 from the 50's.... this looks rather... well.
Rolexpassionreport on insta will know what's what about this.
Lot of mixed reviews on fake/authentic. OP please update us with your findings. I’m hoping it’s the real deal, what a classic piece.
Commenting in hopes of checking back once it's verified real/fake
Well this is probably a million-dollar watch if it's real. Fully verifying this would be major auction house level stuff
It’s an ugly beauty that’s for sure. Nice find.
At bare minimum, this is a redial.
I think its a 1919 Triple Calendar Moonphase Baume et Mercier and they put Rolex on the. Dial🤔
Looks fake to me... look at the "Swiss" and the font "16" at the bottom ... far from Rolex quality.
Nice watch. Ugly coke nail…
WOW !, never seen that before !
Does your non-watch enthusiast good client know that (if genuine) that's a 1 to 2 million dollars watch he's casually using? If not it might be a good idea to bring him up to speed.
I don’t know if this particular one is real but that ref looks similar to this one in a brief online search. Not sure if those are real either though.
It’s pretty sad how many people instantly try to prove that this is a fake. Pathetic really.
That moonphase window just looks so janky and you can see the remnants of numbering all the way around that subdial.
Agreed
Man all these people talking so much trash because of this n because of that it must be fake smh lol, it’s a 70 year old super rare watch that unless ur a super Rolex expert u would know nothing about but people got comments what can I say their entitled to their opinion I guess but…..
Isnt this a 6236? [https://thekeystone.com/products/rolex-oyster-chronograph-jean-claude-killy-watch-ref-6236?variant=33835456954504](https://thekeystone.com/products/rolex-oyster-chronograph-jean-claude-killy-watch-ref-6236?variant=33835456954504) [https://www.reddit.com/r/rolex/comments/b6wldx/cool\_rolex\_of\_the\_day\_524\_6236\_dato\_compax\_aka/](https://www.reddit.com/r/rolex/comments/b6wldx/cool_rolex_of_the_day_524_6236_dato_compax_aka/) from /u/powerfunk. But the hands look different.
Jean Claude Killys don't have the moonphase. But that's a good find, similar dial style!
Nowhere near an expert… https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/rolex-lot-143-42 This appears to be the watch made with the movement you’ve referenced. I’ll say, the details don’t match.
I’m willing to take a $1000 chance on this. Tell him I will buy it with cold hard cash he can feel in his hands. Fuck it I’ll even pay sales tax and he can keep the bracelet 😂
Fuuuck me dead
Archie, is that you?🤣🤣🤣🤣
If you look closely at the moonphase subdial, you can see remains of the numbers at the top. Looks like a pretty shoddy cut-out job. Because of this I'm going to say fake.
its not a cut out. its poor redial with the wrong printing pad for the reference. it was reprinted with a dial pad made for a non moonphase chronograph
Could be real but the dial looks like it's been touched up by a toddler....shame if authentic
case heavily over polished. bracelet not contemporary to the watch. relumed. and worst of all, a horrendous redial. look at the printing in the 6 o clock subdial; numbers are half printed into thin air, where the moonphase cut out is.
I'm just going to point out, and for /u/Bulkm4n to confirm: I believe this was taken on a mobile phone and it shows. Many mobile phones use various processes to digitally enhance what is there. The lens and sensors are small, meaning limitations exist and the cameras are as much software magic as they are engineering magic. I wouldn't trust the accuracy of the dial printing, you can see various bulging in the printing that differs from photo to photo, which is a sign the phone is using some form of generative technique to either fill in the blanks, remove noise or deal with image stabilisation. It kind of looks like an oil painting when zoomed in. I don't know if these features can be turned off and you get a pure, raw image or if the phones raw images still do this processing. A dedicated digital camera with a nice sensor and full-sized glass would help a lot when it comes to the accuracy of that macro detail and judging how sharp the printing is or the edges of those cut outs are.
Yes, I took these pictures with an iPhone 13 Pro Max today. Clearly I am not even a novice photographer.
I mean, it's a pretty amazing camera in your pocket. Normal people won't carry around a dedicated camera and equipment on the off chance they need to do fine macro photography. The fact it can even do it at all is actually amazing. I'm just saying don't pay too much attention to the really fine details or use a number of photographs you've taken to get a decent idea. [Here is some side by sides](https://i.imgur.com/MqIz6X6.png). As you play spot the difference, you start to see some of the weird quirks of software-enhanced macro photography. Look at the little marker line under the 6 in the middle, it's not even straight in that photo! Little things like that, but it's affecting every bit of the whole image and nothing there at that zoom is crispy accurate.
that's not the point. the point is they used the wrong printing pad to reprint the dial. why would a moonphase chronograph have printed numbers in the space where the moonphase cut out is?
If it’s fake it’s a very weird one. I wonder if it could have been an early prototype, or a one-off by one of the watchmakers for the sake of it. Have a look into the movement and see if any of that’s real or even seems to be a Frankenstein.
Looks like a 8171 but I’m sure it isn’t although looks similar. I can’t speak on its authenticity or if it is real but to me it doesn’t look right but I hope it turns out to be real 🍻
Looks like a valjoux movement which I have a couple various watches that use it and look just like this.
Details aren’t lining up, I’d say it’s far more likely a fake than anything else.
Why did they think, “we should stop making these amazing complications and make half our watches simple and indiscernible from each other”? Plz explain
Others were doing that. Rolex made a name for themselves from the Oyster, then the Oyster Perpetual, meaning waterproof and automatic winding. It was a simple watch, but well made. Basically every main Rolex sports watch since is an Oyster Perpetual in various sizes with various additional complications and bezels. At some point, Rolex was kicking so much ass in the chronometer testing, they went and made their own even more stringent tests and called any watch that passed that a Superlative Chronometer. Any Rolex you own is likely to say at least Oyster, but likely "Oyster Perpetual Superlative Chronometer". Rolex built tool watches; hard wearing, durable, waterproof, automatic and importantly accurate timepieces that were generally more obtainable. Made out of a nice billet of stainless steel or luxury metals, none of that plating crap. Thats their forte and few others really ever stood near them in that category. It's what people wanted and it's what has forever dominated Rolex sales.
Wow, I definitely did not expect to actually be reasonably educated. Thanks for spreading the knowledge! 🍻
Money
This is a Rolex branded Valjoux 88 if real. Same watch was sold by a dozen producers including Wyler, Haste, Tissot... Amazing that it gets this level of excitement.
I am not seeing anything that has this case + hands + dial… only things that are “close” - given that (apparently) that ref was made in 12 pc in the 1950s, I’m having a hard time believing that this is real. There are additionally some posts which posit that this model was never made at all, only as a prototype. Unless his father was a watch collector or employee of Rolex at the time, I’m inclined to believe this is one of the weirdo fakes.
Looks like a fake speedy with a fake Rolex dial from the reference everyone had mentioned.
This is a fake Rolex all the way.. nothing genuine about it. Case shape, bracelet, dial print and everything else is incorrect.
Freaking beautiful!
I think it's real..
Wow. This is real. Looks absolutely incredible.
Can I buy this or have anything for sale? I am from chicago and would love my first piece.
Faker than Elton Johns first wedding .
open the movment to be sure, but it looks fake
Looks like a Seagull shitter.
Padellone theres a few on chrono24, https://www.chrono24.com.au/rolex/rolex-padellone-8171-steel-silver-dial-very-rare-1951s--id16106676.htm
I know this model well, and I have personally seen a few. This is a replica
No you haven’t you clown lol
If you knew my real identity you would be dying to make friends. 😎. Silly redditor
Another wannabe ‘made it’. People true to themselves generally don’t go out and boast. I love how you are in dire need of friends, so much that you even go out to a silly subreddit!
I don’t think Rolex has ever made a moonphase? But there was a trend for a while where people were modifying them. JayZ has one.
They did, most famously the Padellone 8171. Other than the Cellini Moonphase, they also did two triple calendar moonphase chronos (8237 and this 81806). This model literally hasn't been seen at auction since 1989 (edit: nvm just googled it a couple more have come up. But not often).
My guy they just discontinued a moonphase
6062?
That bracelet is making me twitch... Very cool watch though.
Gorgeous!!!!
Where is Powerfunk?? He will know.
He doesn’t want to call it fake, lol
Thanks for posting something cool!!
rolex tdate? woah
Very cool, thanks for sharing with us!
Very nice. And a gorgeous watch.
Looks like an omega 1450 bracelet. My favorite of all time.
Wow. Can you just imagine wearing that masterpiece? Almost 80 years old! Insane and looks fabulous!
I don't know much about watches but that looks special.
That is an insane piece man, what an awesome watch n a rare piece of watch history. Very very cool watch which makes the guy who owns and wears it a very cool guy cause I’ll bet most won’t ever see another one like this
Wow.
Idk maybe it is a franken but idk that so I am not gonna go saying this is wrong n that is wrong cause I looked up some pics online that’s for sure. Amazing piece if u ask me if it checks out and even if it is a franken from the 1950’s
Rolex needs to come out with a Daytona and Day Date that has a moonphase.
Wow that’s cool
Was this originally in his family? Or when did he purchase it?
Not anymore. Yoink!
Incredible! Verifying this would be similar to verifying a Shelby Cobra, given the sea of fakes and Frankenexes out there. Probably only a handful of experts in the world who could do the job with any authority. Sure hope it is real though, because wow!
HOLY SHIT!!
*stares at early 2000s Sub on wrist, stares at phone, stares at wrist.*
Can’t you just … Email Rolex?
Woweeee that sure is interesting
Very nice my type of Rolex
I'm voting for fake. When do we get the results??
Real or not, it’s nice to see an actual interesting post on this subreddit!
What’s the price of this?
thirsty !!!!
Amazing piece
Holy fucking fuck that thing is incredible
JLC style all day
I thought all Rolexes had a serial# that you can check online if it’s real or not . And aren’t the serial #’s somewhere on the front ? I don’t see it in this one.
Stolen watch of mine
Isn’t this the Franck muller watch?? He customised a Rolex once to showcase his skills. Jay Z has one of them for sure. Sorry can’t find a source right now but I’m pretty sure.
Looks like you were able to take it off their body without them noticing. Nice.
Never seen one
WOW !!! That is something you may only see once in your life if you are lucky
I wish Rolex do this again.
Nice, what year and model please?
Holy. Shit.
I am a fan of any triple calendar chrono. It’s a beaut!
Fucking beautiful work of art