This is a Reverso!?! More like a "Rough-verso"!

[@davideljones1982]

Hey Austin. Some good observations. I pulled out my 2021 Reverso (Duoface, but all the same for this comparison) and inspected it with a loupe. No printing issues at all on the dial - definitely something up with that example. As for the tolerances on the case - another red flag and might be a sign that the watch has previously been worked on by an inexperienced watchmaker or has been involved in some rough-and-tumble. Again comparing to my Reverso, all tolerances are tight and perfect. If I recall correctly, the Reverso case comprises of over 50 pieces - or some high number of pieces- and an inexperienced/unqualified watchmaker or rough treatment could easily put the case tolerances out. Good advice to give this example a miss.

[@watchsymposium]

Thanks for sharing that, David!

[@sdm107]

Austin you made so many good points about sellers doing a poor/lazy job listing their watches

[@jmbaug1229]

I love the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso. This is a fake 100% that can't be real. You really have a good eye. J.

[@1JJONES]

Well analyzed, I'd take that advice!

[@erichwlim]

As an owner of a Reverso from the similar year, the papers, dial, engraving, the case... they all look wrong. If you wish to see some pictures of the genuine watch and box/papers, just let me know. Run for the hills!

[@AnakChan]

I have a Reverse Duo 270.8.54 from 2000 and and mine is quite well put together - the print, the engraving, the sliding and the flipping of the case is as one would expect from a top quality brand. I also have a Square World Chronograph from 2009 and that was also well made. Unless JLC has dropped their QC in the past decade, that particular one does not look right.

[@aciel-tv]

One red flag raises a small alarm. Multiple red flags? : avoid.

[@artblend4278]

There is another ad for the same piece and it seems it has the same printing problem, in any case the engraving on the back looks a bit fishy . Both are from 2017, so it could well be the dials from that batch were not properly made. I prefer the small second one anyway but buying a reverso requires to be extra cautious. I would not pull the trigger if not 100% sure, Harshad

[@DonAl9114]

Hello Austin. Any JLC is a high quality watch, just like Rolex. Myself I bought a Reverso Grand Sport back in 1998 and I still own this watch. The dial is of course fairly small but the details are sharp and clear. Also the flip mechanism work still perfect and the lock is very tight. So my impression to the watch you looked seems like a non original piece. Even though I prefer Rolex watches these days I can say that any JLC stands for pure Swiss quality. 😊😊😊🇩🇪

[@Mr-Merchant.]

Austin is not a watch guy he is a Rolex guy but he will be first to say himself, as you can see. I have handed a super clone Reverso and it was scary good, stay clear.

[@chenchina4577]

Jaeger Le-Chinois.

[@davidc5191]

I have a 2001 Reverso and all the lettering and engraving on the reverse are super crisp, not like the one you show.

[@Mike-r7m2m]

Run

[@jaredcoffin3907]

Good observations. Rest assured your keen authenticator’s instincts are transferable across brands. Definitely a suspicious example.

[@Parkster63]

Great eye ... for someone who is not a JLC guy, you picked up on everything that was wrong about that watch. I'm on my third JLC, and the build quality has always been impeccable on all of them, this watch is not the sum of its parts ... nice way for me to not say what I think a few others have already said. Personally, I'd run away from the watch in the vid.

[@ricoimf777]

Hi Austin, may I ask a quick question? Is it possible that a 2003 16710 GMT-Master 2 has a hole case? Greetings from Germany to you in Japan ;-)

[@watchsymposium]

Thanks for watching! I suppose it's possible, but it's not something I'd expect to see. Rolex transitioned to the no-holes cases during the Y serial (2001-2002). So by 2003, when the F serials started up, they were making the no-holes cases.

[@ricoimf777]

@@watchsymposium Thank you a lot, this helps me!

[@anthonytjandradjaja12]

Hi austin,Which one is more good between cartier tank or JLC reverso?but if JLC i will choose master control triple calender moonphase instead

[@watchsymposium]

I couldn't say, but maybe someone more into those brands will weigh in. I can just give you my impression, and that would be that they seem to be on-par in terms of quality, but the character is a little different - Cartier is a luxury watch for the masses, while JLC's are targeted to watch lovers. I prefer JLC, as Cartier is sometimes lumped with "fashion brand" watches.

[@jfdomega7938]

@@watchsymposium excellent viewpoint Austin!!

[@BAF605]

I own a Reverso Medium Thin manual wind. Your sharp eye has definitely picked up problems with this watch. For me the engraving on the case looks very suspect. I wouldn't buy it. You're right about poor photography too. Good shots of the watch take some expertise but boxes and papers are relatively easy to photograph. If the seller doesn't show them in detail something is being hidden.

[@kenn82draw]

Possible replica 🤔

[@davideljones1982]

Potentially, but I don’t think these watches are popular enough with the general public for the replica market. This is more of a watch geek’s watch.

[@aumkar2]

@@davideljones1982 Don't underestimate replica makers, they do this for a living.

[@peekay4]

@@davideljones1982 Just google "reverso replica", lots of them.

[@douglasmstewart]

That’s not real. The Reverso is the most popular to fake. And like others they do box and papers as well. I’ve never seen a Reverso look like this. JLC should be finished to a very high level. Entry pieces are $8-9k for time only.

[@dariobielorai6928]

This watch is a very " bad fake " .

[@ListenToPowerViolence]

Rolex owner discovers quality of lesser brands in real time.

[@SG-Photography]

This is a 100% fake.

[@underachievingwatchcollect1878]

It’s a fake.

[@LoLreality1]

Fake 😮AF

[@BumblebumBear]

Fake crap

[@Milofchg]

Fake or in very poor condition/repair job.