>obviously fake rolex >gold painted over silver why

>>12717212
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkzaOwAmDmA

Because it's mechanically identical and a logo with 2 cents of material isn't worth $4965

>>12717292
Go back to school kid.

File: S-SARB035_g_large.jpg (21KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x360px

>>12717292
if you want a quality watch without the price tag, there's plenty of choices out there. and for every known rolex model there's decent look a likes ranging anywhere from $50-$500 from reputable brands like seiko or orient

further, people don't buy fake rolexes for quality, they know they're shit, they buy them for cheap prestige. so, why then would they ruin the facade by buying them in a color that confirms any suspicion that it might be fake?

>>12717362
Or, furthermore, there's high quality fake rolexes with Swiss or japanese movements in em. The watch being real is not worth 5k

>>12717659
Except my 7 year old Rolex bought for 6k was appraised at 8k last year. You can't flip a used fake for profit cus that shits gonna be mangy. A high end timepiece is an investment, not just a fashion statement.

>>12718310
You can only make that statement about rolexes and really only certain models. Every other brand depreciates. The reason Rolex does not is that they're iconic, well built, and service isn't so bad. No other brand is a worthwhile "investment" as you call it and that includes some of Rolex's lesser lines. I'll take my $300 and get a phauxlex and put the other 4.7k in the markets as a much better and safer investment.