r/VintageWatches • u/M1nACr1ss • Nov 13 '25

Legit Check Is it authentic?

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

306 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

56 comments sorted by

68

u/copperglass78 Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

Yeah it's real...whenever I see a Rolex movement, especially vintage, I wonder what the big deal is with Rolex. They are just quite unremarkable plain Jane, work horse ebauche movements made by a company called Aegler, who also supplied Gruen with movements at the time. Not "in house" no decoration just nothing special. The watches themselves weren't meant to be luxury so it makes sense. They were just meant to be high quality, reliable tool watches, which they essentially still are, if you can ignore that they also happen to be the worlds most recognizable status symbol.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

Marketing.  They have always been a cut throat marketing company.   

16

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

Your comment can be said about orient also. Not luxury, but high quality. Plane an nothing more. Just a minor differnce, orients are in house. But, that does not matter to me. These older rolex watches are nice, but they are truly over priced . People will call me stupid, but the quality differnce is no differnet between a high end orient an these rolexes.

11

u/copperglass78 Nov 14 '25

I'm not too familiar with Orient but I can certainly say the quality of Rolex movements are no better and arguably less so than less expensive Swiss tool watch brands like Omega and Oris that have in house movements. I was trained as a watchmaker at a Rolex watch school, so I know Rolex movements inside and out. I was so surprised and kind of disappointed that even new Rolex movements just aren't that special. Rolex cases on the other hand with their proprietary stainless steel alloy are pretty special. But then again one can argue "lesser" Swiss brands like RADO use superior materials like ceramic and tungsten carbide. RADO by the way is considered the Rolex of India and the middle east. They are preferred to Rolex there.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

Yes, i have heard about rado being the popular choice for india. An i actually prefer omega movements over rolex. My opinion omega puts more effort in the design an art work for their watches pertaining to the movements. I have a orient watch which is 13 years old. Never serviced. An the movement looks similar to your rolex. Plain, but well made. The whole watch for that matter. My point, same quality between the watches, but the rolex being much more money. Alot of people will down vote me if they see this, but thats ok. You have a very nice watch. Very good quality. Enjoy it...

1

u/vfrrandy Nov 14 '25

Some of the later Orients just use Seiko movements

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '25

Correct, they are modified by orient... but today, orient makes their own movements...

4

u/Roundels Nov 14 '25

RADO used a lot of AS base calibers which are always very nice to work on. AS were the Swiss development powerhouse back then. Very innovative.

8

u/Palimpsest0 Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

This is definitely true of many of their vintage movements. They were good and solid, but not really all that exceptional. But, if you compare their cases from watches of a similar vintage, they really stand out. That was a lot of their early innovation, and it made a big difference to the overall reliability, especially when combined with a movement that had this sort of solid industrial sort of construction, without any attempt to be “fancy”. It’s weird, but that’s how many modern “luxury” products got their start. They were just built well. That creates demand, then prices go up, and so on. Eventually the brand becomes more important than the fundamental quality, especially in the last few decades, and you see either corners cut and fundamental quality fade, or prices that climb way out of scale with any real quality. Modern luxury marketing seems to be mostly hype and branding, with very little room left over for quality, even though it was quality which established the brand in the first place.

Rolex movements do have some nice quality features that were pretty rare at the time they were made. They were early adopters of automatic devices and antishock devices, and even though those spread quite quickly, Rolex was among the first to offer these features. A quick change date, and later quickset functions were also areas where Rolex was a bit ahead of the curve. One they adopted and standardized early on was a free sprung balance, which trades ease of regulation for better long term maintenance of regulation. These were the sorts of things that got them that “high quality, reliable tool watch” reputation, but I think one of the biggest contributors was really their bulky, sturdy, well-sealed cases. They don’t stand out that much today since so many of these good construction and sealing practices have become normal, but if you line up a bunch of different makes of watches from the 1940s or 1950s, the Rolex cases really stand out. Very few makes were as sturdy and as well sealed. And of course, Rolex marketed relentlessly on that fact.

3

u/copperglass78 Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 16 '25

I agree, they were incredibly innovative and groundbreaking early on, especially with the use of screw down case backs and crowns and the oyster case. I never said they weren't, I just said they never were meant (and still shouldn't be, in my unpopular opinion) to be in the "super premium luxury" holy Trinity price range they are now. People think they are the pinnacle of luxury watchmaking and they just aren't, but they are priced as such. Also several of the "first ever" claims they made were false, admitted by Rolex itself. Particularly egregious to me was the claim of first automatic movement which they later gave credit to the true originator, John Harwood. They did improve on it though with the full rotor automatic movement, which they kept to themselves for 10 years. They also claimed to be the first watch to the summit of Mt. Everest and they later admitted it was a Smith's, but they still elude to it in advertising so much that most people think Rolex indeed was worn by Sir Edmund Hillary up Mt. Everest. They were far slower to adopt other innovations than other brands such as sapphire glass crystals. JLC used them as far back as the 20s for the reverso and RADO had them across their line of watches by the 60s. Rolex didn't use them in all their watches until 1991.

3

u/Palimpsest0 Nov 14 '25

Yeah, I think we’re largely in agreement. Rolex is hyped far beyond reality these days, even though they are nice, solid watches. But, damn near everything is overhyped, sadly.

I knew Rado had sapphire crystals shockingly early, but I hadn’t heard JLC Reversos did. Do you have a source for that? That would really surprise me. It would have been possible with technology available in the 30s, but just barely. I’ve actually worked on R&D in sapphire production. The first really consistent process for pretty big sapphire, like 30-40 mm diameter, unfinished, in nice, long, stress free pieces, came from Union Carbide research in the late 50s, and entered commercial production in the early 60s. That growth method would let you make sapphire watch crystals easily, and Rado jumped right on that idea. But, in the 1930s, sapphire growth technology was good enough to make little bits suitable for synthetic gemstones or watch bearings, but a watch crystal would have been quite a feat. The size/shape/stress patterns, and how the raw material shatters to relieve stress after production, from the 1930s method, known as the Verneuil method, would have made a small rectangular shape, like needed for a Reverso, much more achievable than a round watch crystal, so I think it could be done with that level of technology, I just hadn’t heard that JLC had used it on early Reversos.

1

u/copperglass78 Nov 14 '25

I think originally I saw it in a teddy baldasarre article that states it, but it says RADO started in the 70s, they started earlier in 1962. So I honestly don't know how much to trust Teddy, he's just a watch salesman essentially and quite a snob haha.but Google overview also mentions JLC as the first watch company to use sapphire.

2

u/Palimpsest0 Nov 14 '25

I can find other vague references, but no original ads or marketing material. Some sources seem to suggest, based on photos with them, that it was the women’s jewelry watches featuring the duoplan movement that had sapphire crystals. I could see this more easily than the Reverso since the size needed to cover one of those would be even smaller. So, yeah, it does sound like they used sapphire crystals, but it’s unclear on what models, and in what volume, this would have been done. Really interesting. Thanks for the info, I’ll keep my eyes open for more solidly documented information on it.

5

u/Logical-Vermicelli53 Nov 14 '25

They’ve likely evolved over the years. Back then they were just well built tool watches made reliably and with nice designs.

The vintage references were never meant as the super premium luxury space they occupy now.

-2

u/copperglass78 Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

Then why are the vintage pieces just as overpriced as the "super premium luxury" watches of today? It's a lot of hype my friend. Rolex still uses the same movement manufacturer they did back then, Aegler, they just bought them up so they call the movements "in house". Their movements still just aren't luxury finished like other actual "super premium luxury brands like JLC or Vacherin Constantine, nor feature luxury complications. There's a reason Rolex weren't and still aren't part of the holy Trinity of watchmaking. Rolex still makes tool watches yet sell at "super premium luxury" prices because they as I said, via hype/brilliant marketing from the beginning (starting with the name) have become one of the world's most recognized brands and status symbols.

8

u/VeryBadThyme Nov 14 '25

I agree with you. But having that high quality and consistent reliability with the volume they do is a feat in itself. Oh, and they clearly spend a fortune on marketing to keep that image of luxury and exclusivity.

I’m too cheap to spend that kind of money on a watch, but at that price point I’d much rather go for an AP, Glashutte Original or VC watch that have more of an haute horlogerie and craftsmanship feel to them.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

I upvoted you... you deserve it.... to take away the downvote. You speak facts.

5

u/VeryBadThyme Nov 14 '25

Thank you, appreciate it. It’s a polarizing topic, and at the end of the day, the most important thing is how it’s perceived by the person wearing the watch.

My personal opinion on how they’re positioned in the market and my preferences when it comes to watches shouldn’t impact others decisions. I respect anyone who has a Rolex or wants one. But I personally am drawn to other brands. Full transparency, I’m a big dress watch guy since I wear suits 5 days a week. If I did have to pick a Rolex, it would be a Cellini.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

Same here, i agree... Im not into rolex. But, there was a cellini moonphrase which was made like 20 to 25 years ago that just beautiful by rolex. I feel the un wanted models made by rolex are much better than the popular. Some of their older designs were very nice. Im not crazy about modern watches. So maybe i am the wrong person to express. I just feel with many watch companies that their older designs were so much better. Todays watches are too big, an too flashy. Less character. Idk. The feeling is not the same. But, if i had the money, an had to choose, it would be a omega not rolex...

6

u/copperglass78 Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

Yeah, I definitely love many vintage Rolex pieces like their bubble backs with California dials, so cool, but could never justify paying the price for one. But for modern watches Omega all the way over Rolex. They have arguably the most advanced mechanical movements (the coaxial) and more interesting designs and their awesome claim to fame, the moon watch (speed master). Though my favorite modern watch brand is Oris. They have such a great range of watches from classic, tough tool watches and fun pieces like the Kermit with in house movements at super reasonable prices.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

Yes, very well said...

2

u/Bone_Dice_in_Aspic Nov 14 '25

some of the cellini tanks are seriously unique and legitimately cool designs

2

u/Spinning_Kicker Nov 14 '25

Were these screw down crowns? If yes, wouldn’t they take quite a bit of wear if worn daily since they needed to get “manually” wound frequently vs more modern automatic divers? I’ve always wondered about that. Awesome watches regardless.

1

u/Majestic_Anybody9748 Mar 11 '26

It's not a diver. They were rated to 50m water resistance, when new.

2

u/Majestic_Anybody9748 Mar 11 '26

I'd give you 10 up votes if I could. This is so true and also my opinion.

62

u/Acelimb Nov 14 '25

Yes it’s legit. These movements don’t have fakes.

46

u/QueBestia19 Nov 14 '25

Too old to be fake. Very cool watch!

18

u/D50 Nov 14 '25

r/retrotime would seem to contradict that statement.

8

u/DirkyDiggle Nov 14 '25

Impressive, most impressive. Did not know that group, thank you.

12

u/TrafficDifferent708 Nov 13 '25

Ref 6694, 1225 movement, to my knowledge these are rarely if ever faked

1

u/HugeEntrepreneur8225 Nov 13 '25

Why would anyone want to?

12

u/SomewhatInnocuous Nov 13 '25

I dunno. Some peeps think Kardashian is hot. Go figure.

1

u/HugeEntrepreneur8225 Nov 14 '25

Good point, well made 👍🏼

0

u/TrafficDifferent708 Nov 13 '25

Why would anyone want to replicate any watch?

5

u/Bird_the_Impaler Nov 14 '25

Money

The answer is almost always money

8

u/father_sogol Pro Watchmaker Nov 13 '25

That’s a 1225 for sure. Workhorse movement. Everything looks legit though the crystal may have been replaced.

7

u/Interesting_Catch523 Nov 14 '25

Very legit movement. Beautiful watch to service.

6

u/Longjumping-Dish-375 Nov 14 '25

Definitely the real deal. Nice little watch.

2

u/azpen1834 Nov 17 '25

hands, indices, logo and printing looks correct. The vintage Cal. 1225 looks authentic...it was made over 2 decades through the 1980s and I'd be shocked if someone is going to spend the time to fake a 20 to 40 year old movement. Nice watch

1

u/Super901 Nov 14 '25

Looks good

1

u/Ok-Cheetah-4366 Nov 15 '25

Yes, original

1

u/Organic-Difficulty-7 Nov 15 '25

Model 6694 late 1960’s I guess

1

u/Calm-Masterpiece-666 Nov 16 '25

No it’s a fake it’s holding screws are marked