Fake Rado diasta

[pratama]

how to distinguish the original tungsten rado diastar from the clone made in china?


because the tungsten casing made in China is also very scratch resistant.

so that many on the market use tungsten casings made in China with movements using original rado?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scottjc]

Hi, I'm sorry but I don't fully understand your question.
Are you saying that somebody makes tungsten carbide cases in China and then inserts original Rado parts?
That doesn't sound like a cost effective process to me as genuine Rados don't sell for enough for such fakes to be profitable.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk

[sladew]

Hi, I'm sorry but I don't fully understand your question.
Are you saying that somebody makes tungsten carbide cases in China and then inserts original Rado parts?
That doesn't sound like a cost effective process to me as genuine Rados don't sell for enough for such fakes to be profitable.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk

I always thought that there must be a minimum profitability point for fakes - until I ran into cheap Seiko 5 fakes in the wild(!)

That was when I realised that anything and everything will be faked if there's a market for it. I haven't seen any obvious fake or replica tungsten carbide Diastars yet, but I'm not sure if I'd know how tell any carbides apart anyhow...

Practically everything quartz from Rado from the 80s onward is faked, in one form or another. That's one of the reason I steer clear of most vintage quartz myself. That's also why I steer clear of the really 'gaudy' dialed Diastars and Balboas. Those ones, regularly sold, with plastic still on case-back and bracelet make me doubt that there is really anything that is NOS...

Slade.

[Henry Krinkle]

In this example the 648 reference is a dead giveaway with the 2789 inside. They've used a relatively modern reference number and a snap on caseback with a mid period movement.

Also in a general way that's hard to specifically quantify, this one looks fake. I think if one had the same dial in an authentic Diastar right beside this one it would be somewhat obvious. The fakes always look a little undefined, not quite as sharp or precise.

[sladew]

In this example the 648 reference is a dead giveaway with the 2789 inside. They've used a relatively modern reference number with a snap on caseback with a mid period movement.

Also in a general way that's hard to specifically quantify, this one looks fake. I think if one had the same dial in an authentic Diastar right beside this one it would be somewhat obvious. The fakes always look a little undefined, not quite as sharp or precise.

Henry I think that you're quite correct about both the movement and also the dial and finish.

Its always hard working off the digital photos particularly if they have been taken carefully to frame or hide problems....

Looking at this particular example, the dial is a very complex and busy pattern, but I don't have enough knowledge about authentic Rado patterns so I can't really comment on that.

It's a bit hard to tell what are artifacts in the digital images, but I don't like the look of the Rado anchor. That shaft and pivot looks "messy". I also think that the hands look untidy. Finally, the raised Rado name and model name also don't look quite right to me.

I'd love to see this compared side by side with an authentic Rado dial.

When I'm buying overseas I always try to see a side by side comparison using digital photos. Frequently I compare to a number of different photos from careful searches to build confidence in the dial, case and the case-back. Bracelets and buckle are also useful comparisons.

I also try to build an overall impression of the pattern of dirt and wear. That's a lot harder when you take servicing and cleaning into account, but I am always concerned when I see very obvious differences in wear, usage, markings or finishing particularly on closely related components or parts of a watch.

In my experience, there are a bunch of VERY knowledgeable Rado types in this forum who are very helpful (given a bit of info and a few photos to work from).

Slade.

[pratama]

Hi, I'm sorry but I don't fully understand your question.
Are you saying that somebody makes tungsten carbide cases in China and then inserts original Rado parts?
That doesn't sound like a cost effective process to me as genuine Rados don't sell for enough for such fakes to be profitable.

Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk

the rado seller said that the only thing that was original was the movement, the rest was made in china. it would be horrible to me if china could make tungsten carbide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Henry Krinkle]

Henry I think that you're quite correct about both the movement and also the dial and finish.

Its always hard working off the digital photos particularly if they have been taken carefully to frame or hide problems....

Looking at this particular example, the dial is a very complex and busy pattern, but I don't have enough knowledge about authentic Rado patterns so I can't really comment on that.

It's a bit hard to tell what are artifacts in the digital images, but I don't like the look of the Rado anchor. That shaft and pivot looks "messy". I also think that the hands look untidy. Finally, the raised Rado name and model name also don't look quite right to me.

I'd love to see this compared side by side with an authentic Rado dial.

When I'm buying overseas I always try to see a side by side comparison using digital photos. Frequently I compare to a number of different photos from careful searches to build confidence in the dial, case and the case-back. Bracelets and buckle are also useful comparisons.

I also try to build an overall impression of the pattern of dirt and wear. That's a lot harder when you take servicing and cleaning into account, but I am always concerned when I see very obvious differences in wear, usage, markings or finishing particularly on closely related components or parts of a watch.

In my experience, there are a bunch of VERY knowledgeable Rado types in this forum who are very helpful (given a bit of info and a few photos to work from).

Slade.

It's true. It can be really difficult telling if it's a poor photo or a good copy. I sort of go in thinking if you've got a decent watch why don't you have a decent camera? That's where checking the seller and the price can help to confirm suspicions. Has the guy got a dozen "new" Diastars for sale? Are they kinda too cheap? Has he sold dozens/hundreds of them already? That sort of thing. I find those questions are generally answered in the way that makes me more certain that I am looking at a fake. It get's a little harder when someone is reselling what they never knew was a fake in the first place, but those people can often be convinced of providing more and better photos.

[Henry Krinkle]

the rado seller said that the only thing that was original was the movement, the rest was made in china. it would be horrible to me if china could make tungsten carbide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no doubt that they can.

[sladew]

the rado seller said that the only thing that was original was the movement, the rest was made in china. it would be horrible to me if china could make tungsten carbide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chinese manufacturers for sure sinter tungsten carbide.

If they can manufacture the sintering furnaces and machines that make tungsten carbide drilling bits, then I would think that carbide watch cases would be an easy process

But I'm not sure that fakers would even bother trying.

How many people could really be able to tell carbide from a particularly hard metal alloy (nevermind various types of real carbides)?

Remember a faker doesn't have to fool everyone with a fake. They only have to trick the potential buyer, and there's always another potential mark right around the corner!

Slade.