Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum - View Single Post - "1932-1957 H.WILSDORF A SES COLLABORATEURS" engraved on the CB of this Vintage Rolex.

jedly1 · 12 November 2011, 06:29 AM

Sorry a bit edited itself ... On the hole ... It isn't a conclusive thing either way ... It doesn't ABSOLUTELY damn your watch not having it , nor would it ABSOLUTELY prove it if it did .. But it's just one of those little obscure details that fakers seldom add ... And it's prescience would just be one more minor tick that you like to see when putting things on the plus side of the equation ..

As is the three or full serial bit ... Rolex uses both for sure .. There is no conclusive there ( well maybe as we haven't seen it yet) ...

These details all just get placed on the scales of prObability about how you weigh up a watch.

As your normal appeoach to many a piece is very dogmatic and rigid to fit a model you have built , with regards to mk this and mk that ... I am very confused about your approach to this piece ( and I guess the 6538) ... Your normal view that a watch is wrong unless everything is proved 'right ' about it ..then this you seem to want to believe / claim is correct unless it can be proven it's not, ... This seems a real contradiction in thinking ..

12 November 2011, 06:29 AM	#62
jedly1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: mel(oz)/Yorks(uk) Posts: 1,917	Sorry a bit edited itself ... On the hole ... It isn't a conclusive thing either way ... It doesn't ABSOLUTELY damn your watch not having it , nor would it ABSOLUTELY prove it if it did .. But it's just one of those little obscure details that fakers seldom add ... And it's prescience would just be one more minor tick that you like to see when putting things on the plus side of the equation .. As is the three or full serial bit ... Rolex uses both for sure .. There is no conclusive there ( well maybe as we haven't seen it yet) ... These details all just get placed on the scales of prObability about how you weigh up a watch. As your normal appeoach to many a piece is very dogmatic and rigid to fit a model you have built , with regards to mk this and mk that ... I am very confused about your approach to this piece ( and I guess the 6538) ... Your normal view that a watch is wrong unless everything is proved 'right ' about it ..then this you seem to want to believe / claim is correct unless it can be proven it's not, ... This seems a real contradiction in thinking ..