Last month, we learned that the Rolex ‘Atelier de Restauration’ has difficulty evaluating their vintage watches, to put it mildly. Several new cases have emerged in the meantime. While inconceivable, the financial damage should remain within certain limits in most instances. What happens, however, when the Atelier accepts fake examples of rare watches potentially worth one million dollars and more, like a Rolex Paul Newman Daytona ‘Oyster Sotto’, of which just about 20 real examples are known? Well, reassured by Rolex’s acceptance of such a rarity for restoration, Sotheby’s Geneva proceeded, despite my protest, to sell a fake example in May 2024. If Rolex validates it, it can be sold, so the thinking goes. The good thing is, the ‘Oyster’ print was so demonstrably fake that the watch fetched “only” CHF 254,000, including premium. People need to wake up to the fact that a Rolex ‘Atelier de Restauration’ certification for a vintage watch is not worth the paper it is printed on.

---

Lot 335 – Rolex Daytona ‘Oyster Sotto Mk2’, Ref. 6263, 2200215

In November 2013, a rare Rolex Paul Newman Daytona ‘Oyster Sotto’ Mk2, Ref. 6263, was the first vintage Daytona model to break through the one million dollar barrier. What is an “Oyster Sotto’? It is an early Ref. 6263 screw-down pusher Daytona featuring a black 3-colour Paul Newman dial originally made for the pump pusher Ref. 6262/6264 model but modified by Rolex’s dial maker Singer by adding ‘Oyster’ underneath the Cosmograph print. Sotto is Italian for underneath. As of today, over 30 pieces considered to be original have surfaced, of which only 20 are real, in my estimation. Below is a picture of the watch sold at Sotheby’s in May 2024. The lot essay stated the following:

“Accessories: Rolex restauration quote dated May 5, 2023”

Auction link: Lot 335 – Rolex Daytona ‘Oyster Sotto Mk2’, ref. 6263, 2200215 (sothebys.com)

A closer look at the ‘Oyster’ designation quickly revealed a fake print, added to an original pump pusher Ref. 6262/6264 dial to fool people into believing this was a rare ‘Oyster Sotto’, potentially worth one million dollars. That is how easy it is to make a relatively credible fake ‘Oyster Sotto’. The picture below compares a rare ‘Oyster Sotto’ dial with its pump pusher counterpart without the ‘Oyster’ designation. Only with the introduction of the screw-down pushers did Rolex consider the Cosmograph Daytona truly waterproof, hence the name ‘Oyster’. If you can get your hands on an original Ref. 6262/6264 dial, and you are equipped with the necessary criminal energy; making an ‘Oyster Sotto’ is not that difficult.

The problem is, of course, getting the ‘Oyster’ print right, and that is what separates the wheat from the chaff. The picture below shows a comparison done with a close-up of the watch in question (top), provided by Sotheby’s at the time, and ‘Oyster’ prints found on authentic ‘Oyster Sotto’ watches, in addition to the print used in so-called ‘Panda’ dials of the first three types, namely Mk1, Mk2 (1.5), and Mk3 (1.75). As you can see, the ‘Oyster’ print on Sotheby’s example is totally off, almost comically so. In contrast, the other prints are basically identical to each other and done with the same cliché.

The Ref. 6262/6264 dial featuring a fake ‘Oyster’ print is not the only problem with this watch. The movement is a later, non-period-correct version of Cal. 727, as can be seen in the excerpt from the Rolex estimate shown below.

Sure, this could be some weird early service replacement. Still, on watches of this magnitude, where authenticity is key, any departure from the way a watch was originally conceived needs to be highlighted. I am aware that most people in the business are not familiar with the different Cal. 727 variations, as they have focussed mainly on dial and case conditions. With nearly ten thousand meticulously documented vintage Daytonas in my database, it is easy for me to determine which movement version belongs to which batch.

To conclude, it took me one quick look at Sotheby’s low-resolution image to understand that the ‘Oyster’ print was fake. Rolex, on the other hand, kept the watch in their workshop for more than three months before accepting it for restoration and issuing the estimate that states:

“Après l’analyse approfondie de la montre, nous avons le plaisir de vous communiquer notre estimation des travaux à effectuer, jointe à ce courrier.”

Translation: After a thorough analysis of the watch, we are pleased to provide you with our estimate of the work to be carried out, attached to this letter.

Download: Rolex estimate for 2200215 (566 KB)

I am sure the Atelier almost ruptured itself with this thorough analysis. Anyway, the restoration included servicing the movement, polishing the case, replacing the plexi crystal, crown, and screw-down pushers, as well as a complete restoration of the bracelet. Dial and hands were not to be touched. The price was an extortionate 19,500 Swiss Francs. Should the customer not proceed with the restoration, which was the case in this instance, the estimate alone costs 2,000 Swiss Francs. In 2012, I sent my Rolex Submariner Ref. 16800 to Rolex’s service center in Lucerne (Bucherer) for a similar service. I paid CHF 946.00 if I recall correctly. This entire “restoration” concept is a way for Rolex to generate enormous profits at the expense of individuals who believe Rolex can provide them with certainty about their watches.

At this point, it needs to be reemphasized that a Rolex estimate for a service or restoration is not a certificate of authenticity and is clearly stated so in the document. Auction houses and dealers often attach these estimates to the watches to give buyers certainty. Please do not fall for it. As we have learned, neither an estimate nor an executed restoration by the Rolex ‘Atelier de Restauration’ is a guarantee that a watch is legit.

---

Thoughts

Notwithstanding the evidence, Sotheby’s went ahead with the sale. Fetching the laughable amount of CHF 254,000 for a watch of this magnitude, collectors and dealers alike evidently smelled the rat three miles against the wind. The ‘Oyster’ print is so demonstrably false, it truly begs the question: how could the experts at Rolex have fallen for it? Something is rotten at the Rue François-Dussaud 3-5-7 in Geneva. Following my last article on how Rolex accepted fake watches for “restoration” (polishing the case and servicing the movement is hardly a restoration), I have received some interesting feedback. A certain ‘Yacine’ commented on the article, saying:

“Between the end of 2023 and 2024, Rolex separated from its best World Service managers and drove away its experts, disgusted by their boss’s [SIC] practices. 250 years of expertise gone in a few months. I am very close to several of them who are not surprised by the lack of expertise of the team now in charge of restoration.”

Now, I have never heard of this before, but an important Rolex insider who worked for several decades at the Geneva-based company confirmed the above to me:

“There is no one left at Rolex who has any knowledge of vintage Rolex watches and could distinguish between originals and altered or fake ones.”

If this is truly the case, the world of vintage Rolex is officially cooked! Rolex needs to get a grip – fast –as this will further erode a market that already resembles Russian roulette. The best way for Rolex to deal with this unfortunate state of affairs is to stay away from vintage watches entirely. As the recently published first Rolex-authorized ‘Submariner’ book by watch industry jester Nicholas Foulkes has clearly shown, Rolex does not understand vintage watch collecting and all its implications. Besides all the errors and continuing to falsely claim the Rolex Oyster from 1926 was the first waterproof watch, the watches depicted in the book are riddled with service parts, which renders them utterly unappealing to collectors. As Dirty Harry famously said: “A man’s gotta know his limitations.”

Thank you for your interest.

Read more: Shocking! Rolex caught restoring fake vintage watches

Disclaimer: All information herein are my own personal views and opinions. I do not accept any responsibility for any potential loss suffered due to my said opinions.