Jump to content

Lee-mcl2105

New Member
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Lee-mcl2105

  • Rank
    Pin Pallet
  1. Completely see where you are coming from, but I view a little restoration as a positive not a negative, clean up, polish maybe replace the plexi, what caused the issue is Rolex stating it’s been modified and not going into any substantial detail as to what’s been changed and what should have been there in the first place. All I set out to do was to make something I treasure and am proud of gleem a bit more, I had a bit of cash to make that happen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Thanks Simon. Let’s get this sorted - I’ve sent a message direct. Perhaps we can chat when you have a moment. Cheers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. Thanks so much everyone, I’ll go the independent route for sure now. I guess what caused a lot of this is, on reflection, Rolex. While highlighting what is incorrect. They actually never said what should have been there - is it really a hardship to give a few part numbers or an indication of what it should have been like “originally” ? For a brand that has such draw, it does pose a few questions as to where they draw a line in regards to customer care. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. Serial number is 73334** - according to web that’s a 1981 watch ( left a couple of numbers off there - being paranoid as not sure if that is something I should be sharing or not ).
  4. Thanks for the reply, I too can see a reluctance, but it’s one of those things that I’d liked to have tried to sort out. Would you know anything about what the “correct” parts would be ? If I were to search say eBay for a Bezel / dial etc would it work that I can get at least some gleam back into the watch ? Thanks.
  5. Yes, but the photos always show the worst on camera phones. It’s certainly well worn, but not too beaten ( unlike me lol )
  6. That’s the date of the valuation - the watch is probably late 70’s. Sorry i I was not clear mate.
  7. Just checked the papers and it’s dated 11/12/2006 & value is £3960.
  8. Thanks mate. I appreciate that advice. If to be clear, do you feel it’s actually modified or they just binned it back to me to save the hassle ? As I said, at retail and insurance valuation it was never noted as modified and even the shop today said that it seemed fine - links aside, she did say she could see a link that did not look right.
  9. According to the lady in the shop today ( who in turn was dealing with Rolex ) the plexi is correct for this model and watch assuming it is around 40 years old.
  10. Hope the pictures help all. Cheers again. To summarise - Rolex have stated the Bezel, Crown & dial are modified. They also said there is a non Rolex link ( no idea what one ) i have no further clue on what should be there. Should not be.
  11. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. Thanks v much for the offer. Let me know what’s the ins and outs of the service offer. Given what’s happened I’m very curious as to discovering what parts should have been on the watch. What’s wrong etc, the annoying thing is the movement is spot on and always has been.
×
×
  • Create New...