Back to all updates

The Watch That Did Not Belong

Submitted counterfeit AP-style green watch examined in the Pryce House Buying blog.

How a Counterfeit Survived Inside a Thirty-Watch Collection

The owner had spent decades around money, business and luxury goods. Now in his eighties, he had led a company worth more than $1 billion and traveled throughout France, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and other international markets, buying watches along the way.

When he decided to liquidate his collection, I prepared a dossier covering more than 30 watches. Each piece was photographed, identified and organized for review. Most entered the normal evaluation process. This watch had to be pulled aside.

It was presented as an Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore Diver Chronograph. At first glance, the fluorescent green dial, octagonal steel case, black subdials and matching rubber strap created a convincing silhouette. Under examination, that impression began to fall apart.

Submitted watch against black.
Submitted watch
White-background reference photograph of the intended Royal Oak Offshore Diver Chronograph configuration.
Reference image

The submitted watch and a reference photograph of the configuration it was intended to resemble. A reference photograph is not authentication by itself. It is a map showing an examiner where to look.

Stage One: Start With the Entire Watch

Full frontal photograph of the submitted watch from Bid 02.
Full frontal photograph from the Bid 02 estate dossier.

The first step is not to search immediately for one famous “tell.” It is to look at the watch as a complete piece of design.

From a distance, this example checks many of the expected boxes. The recognizable case shape is present. The colors are close. The dial contains the expected scales, markers and subdials. The brand name is where a buyer expects to find it.

The problem is the relationship between those elements. The hour markers, dial pattern, printed scales, hands and subdials do not occupy the face with the same precision as the watch being imitated. Individual parts appear close, but the complete design lacks coherence.

This is an important distinction. Counterfeit watches are not always exposed by an obviously misspelled name or a visibly cheap movement. Better copies often reproduce the ingredients. They struggle to reproduce the exact proportions and disciplined finishing that make those ingredients belong together.

Stage Two: Magnification Changes the Dial

Annotated close-up of the submitted watch dial and hour markers.
Enlarged and annotated dial details.

The green color and complicated layout initially work in the counterfeit’s favor. They give the eye too much information to process at once. Magnification removes that protection.

The raised blocks forming the dial pattern show inconsistent borders and definition. Several applied hour markers do not meet the patterned surface with uniform spacing. The edges, luminous centers and shadows surrounding those markers vary noticeably from one position to another.

The left subdial provides another point of comparison. Its numerals, markings and surface finish appear heavier and less controlled than expected. The printed brand name and depth-rating information may look convincing when viewed separately, but their proportions and placement do not resolve correctly within the complete dial.

None of these observations should be used as a universal shortcut. Dials can vary according to reference, production period and service history. The relevant question is whether this specific watch remains consistent with the exact model and configuration it claims to be.

Stage Three: The Bezel Screws Are Part of the Case

Close-up of the submitted watch bezel screw and surrounding finish.
Bezel screw detail
Second bezel screw close-up from the submitted watch.
Second bezel screw detail

The eight hexagonal bezel screws are among the most recognizable elements of the Royal Oak design. They are not merely decorative shapes placed on the front of the watch. They belong to the case construction, making their machining, fit and relationship to the bezel important.

Several screw slots on the submitted watch show irregular cuts, inconsistent edges and visible tool marks. Their seating within the bezel also varies. Around them, the transition between the brushed surface and polished bevel lacks the controlled separation expected from a carefully manufactured case.

A scratched screw does not make a watch counterfeit. An authentic watch can be damaged by wear or careless service. Here, however, the screw construction reinforces concerns already raised by the dial. The determination is cumulative.

Stage Four: Move From the Face to the Controls

Crown, chronograph pushers and case profile of the submitted watch.
Crown, pushers and case profile.

Counterfeiters naturally devote attention to the face because that is where most buyers look. The sides of the case frequently tell a less convincing story.

The winding crown, chronograph pushers, guards and case layers should form one deliberate piece of engineering. Their spacing, shapes and finish should correspond with the claimed reference. On this watch, those components appear assembled around the case rather than designed as one continuous structure.

The alternating brushed and polished surfaces are also important. On a genuine luxury sports watch, those boundaries are intentional and sharply controlled. Wear may dull them, but wear does not explain incorrect geometry.

Stage Five: The Lug Screws Expose the Construction

Lug screw A and rubber strap attachment of the submitted watch.
Lug screw A
Second view of lug screw A.
Lug screw A, second view
Lug screw B and strap attachment.
Lug screw B
Lug screw C and the molding around the strap attachment.
Lug screw C

The lug area produced some of the clearest concerns.

The visible fasteners show inconsistent slots, seating and surrounding recesses. The machining around the screws lacks uniformity from one lug to another. The metal edges and transitions also appear comparatively soft and irregular.

This matters because the case, attachment hardware and strap should meet with repeatable precision. If four attachment points on the same watch appear to have been produced or finished differently, that inconsistency requires an explanation.

Stage Six: A Rubber Strap Still Has Architecture

Rubber strap and case profile of the submitted watch.
Strap and case profile
Opposite rubber strap and case profile.
Opposite strap profile

Buyers sometimes treat a rubber strap as an accessory that deserves less scrutiny than a metal bracelet. That is a mistake.

The texture, molded channels, edges, dimensions and attachment points should all be consistent with the correct component. On this example, the molding is coarse in several areas, and the transitions surrounding the attachment points do not show the same precision as the claimed watch.

A replacement or aftermarket strap does not establish that the watch itself is counterfeit. Genuine watches receive replacement straps every day. In this case, the strap is not the conclusion. It is one more inconsistency added to the dial, bezel, case and lug hardware.

Stage Seven: The Caseback Must Support the Same Identity

Full caseback of the submitted watch.
Full caseback
Angled view of the submitted watch caseback.
Caseback angle

Turning over a watch should continue the same manufacturing story. The engravings, fasteners, case geometry and finish should agree with the identity presented on the dial.

The caseback on this example did not erase any of the concerns found on the front. Its fasteners and finishing continued the same pattern of irregular execution. A complete authentication may proceed further by examining identifiers, internal components and the movement, but the exterior had already failed at multiple independent points.

The Owner’s Story Could Not Authenticate the Object

The owner’s history was legitimate. His business success was legitimate. His international travel was legitimate. None of those facts could authenticate this particular watch.

We also could not determine from the watch alone where or when it entered the collection. Its presence should not be used to accuse a particular country, dealer or marketplace. The collection contained purchases made over many years through multiple channels.

What could be evaluated was the object itself. The watch did not withstand comparison with the model it claimed to be, and it was removed from the collection’s valuation as an authentic Audemars Piguet.

The most dangerous counterfeit is not necessarily the watch offered by an obviously suspicious seller. It is the watch surrounded by genuine property, supported by a credible owner and protected by an otherwise believable history.

That is why a collection cannot be authenticated as a group. Every watch must earn its own place in the dossier.

For help buying, selling or evaluating a single watch, estate piece or complete collection, visit Pryce House Watches.

Pryce House is an independent secondary-market dealer and is not an authorized dealer, agent or representative of Audemars Piguet or any other watch manufacturer. Brand and model names are used solely to identify the property examined. Authentication and condition statements are professional trade opinions and are not manufacturer certifications. This article documents one submitted watch and is not a complete authentication guide for other examples.

Back to all updates