Some things I have learned...

[Beaumont Miller II]

Many times you see watches posted where someone is asking others more knowledgable what there thoughts are on a particular watch. I have been on both sides of this and am always appreciative for the help I get and also happy to help others. Recently I was looking for a very nice condition 1675 GMT and was seeking advice from the 1675 guru, Orchi. For some, this information may be a bit pedestrian, but for others it can save them from buying the wrong watch or paying too much for the watch they buy. For purposes of this discussion I will be using my 1655 Exp II because, of the Rolex watches in my collection, it is probably in as original condition (meaning worn but possibly not polished). The incredible pictures were taken by Andrew Shear. This is what I learned:

It was the evaluation of the case that Orchi was kind enough to educate me on. I would see a watch that looked reasonable, and he kept finding fault with the lugs, calling them redone or overhauled.



From this picture I try to focus on the dial and not make a lot of judgements on the case. Many times the picture is taken at a slight angle to avoid having the camera reflection in the lens. What you can tell about the case is the crown guard size, length, and whether they are even. You can also tell whether the top of the lugs have the satin or brushed finish on them. Sometimes this is not the best view to see whether the factory bevel or chamfer on the lugs is present. If it is there, but hard to see it will make one of the lugs look smaller than the others. Don't see much bevel here do you?



From this view you obviously get to see the 9 o'clock side of the case to look for dings, dents, and scuffs. This is the thing that Orchi was focusing on. Pay particular attention to how close the lug hole is to the end of the lug and to the top. When people talk about lug thickness they need to be talking about lug thickness from top to bottom as well as from side to side. I have heard some describe this as lug height. As the lug height diminishes from polishing on the top of the lug and on the end, the lug hole gets closer to the top and end. Recently I saw a picture of a watch that had the lug ends filed off to make them look fatter. In addition pay particular attention to scooping out of the lug hole which occurs with excessive polishing.



This view is nice for the same as above but also because you can judge whether the crown guards are the same thickness. This view is usually taken straight on and there is no distortion from it being taken from an angle.





IMHO, views at an angle are the best for showing the side of the case with mirror polish, the bevel or chamfer on the lugs as well as the satin or brushed finish on the top of the lugs.



This is the view that I used to focus on when evaluating the lug width or thickness, while neglecting the others. I think it is important to have all 4 lugs in the picture so you can see each lug width side to side at the tip. Yes I do use calipers to check for evenness. Remember the watch that was being sold where the ends were filed down to make them look fat. If all you had was this view, you might only appreciate the end of the lugs being fat at the end but not being a little short.



Finally, it is nice to have a view from between to the lugs to check for side to side thickness as well as to check for pitting between the lugs and a legible serial and reference level.

All of these views are important when evaluating a case, and that is why valued sellers show you all of them. It is for this reason that I try not to comment on the watch case from the pic that best shows the dial. I hope this helps some of the new members who venture into the excitement of collecting vintage Rolex watches. Try not to be fooled with shiny overpolished watches when the trend is for watches to be as original as possible. Scuffs on a vintage watch are acceptable and sometimes help tell the story, and a watch can only be unpolished once. I'm not sure I said that correctly, but I hope you get my meaning. Others more knowledgeable please add to this if there is anything I left out. HAGWE.

[HL65]

Very nice info John!! Well done and great 1655 as well from a great seller as well as great friend- Andrew!!

[Frogman4me]

This was a great read John, thanks for taking the time out to post pictures and explain everything you need in order to determine the quality of a case. I am sure this will be useful to many perspective vintage collectors.

[gpateesq]

Thanks, John. I've learned something new today.

Greg

[Racer X]

All great advice!

[lhanddds]

Great material, well done

[therolexguy]

Thanks for sharing and that's a beautiful watch.

[onkyo]

Thanks for the write up and I couldn't agree more with everything you said. I run from overpolished or amateur polished cases and your advice is spot on.

Beautiful watch btw.....

[greekbum]

Good write up and advise

[jedly1]

sorry john...i am a little confused ...are you saying orchi told you there was problem with this 1655 or am igetting the wrong end of the stick ?

[Yazo]

Awesome info!!!! Thanks for sharing!!

[BB83]

This is a terrific post--thanks so much for writing it!!

[Beaumont Miller II]

No Jed, Orchi never commented on this 1655. Orchi helped me when I was looking to buy a 1675 GMT that I ultimately purchased from Eric Ku. I used the pictures of the 1655 Exp II because of the level of detail in Andrews pictures but also because they are complete as it relates to all views of the watch, more or less. I give you credit Jed for educating me about the chamfer or bevel on the lug and just how hard it is to see when it is taken from certain views. All this was going on when you and Dadswatch were debating about whether all watches came from the factory with the bevel edge or not.

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

No Jed, Orchi never commented on this 1655. Orchi helped me when I was looking to buy a 1675 GMT that I ultimately purchased from Eric Ku. I used the pictures of the 1655 Exp II because of the level of detail in Andrews pictures but also because they are complete as it relates to all views of the watch, more or less. I give you credit Jed for educating me about the chamfer or bevel on the lug and just how hard it is to see when it is taken from certain views. All this was going on when you and Dadswatch were debating about whether all watches came from the factory with the bevel edge or not.

gotcha ...full of a head cold...so whilst the lights are on, there's not really anyone home today :)

[dddrees]

Good info, thanks for sharing.

[Beaumont Miller II]

Thanks all for your encouraging feedback. While certainly not an exhaustive review, hopefully some will find it helpful when choosing their first vintage Rolex or their second one and so on.

[VinSub1680]

thanks so much Beaumont Miller II,
i will save this post as reference and review it every time when i buy a vintage watch.

[hdrazor251]

Great post. Thanks for the education.

[PhilM]

Top post so thanks for taking the time out to share

[Porsche]

Excellent detailed analisys Beaumont Miller II, thanks for increasing my VK (vintage knowledge)

[Ezza8]

Thanks for making the effort to post this information BMII

It will assist a lot of new vintage Rolex collectors and enthusiasts

[BB83]

John, sorry for the ill-informed question, but are bevel/chamfers the same thing or is there a difference?

[mike]

Supurb. Thanks for taking the time time to post and help us all.

[Beaumont Miller II]

Originally Posted by BB83

John, sorry for the ill-informed question, but are bevel/chamfers the same thing or is there a difference?

Yes, both terms have been used interchangeably on this forum.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Yes, both terms have been used interchangeably on this forum.

It is true that both terms are used interchangeably. However, they really aren't the same. As I'm sure John already knows, a "bevel" is an angled surface that extends all the way to an opposite side of something, like a beveled edge of a knife. A "chamfer" on the other hand is an angled surface that does not extend that far. The technically correct term for the angled surfaces on Rolex watches is chamfer because the angled surfaces do not extend all the way from the top surface of the case to the bottom surface of the case.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Yes, both terms have been used interchangeably on this forum.

They shuld not be used interchangeably as they ARE two different specs.

ROLEX cuts "chamfer" on the mid casings NOT bevels!...

[Deldog]

Awesome post. Thanks. ... Deldog

[Beaumont Miller II]

Dave thanks for your valuable insight. If anyone else wants to add, please do.

[BB83]

Thanks for the replies on bevel v chamfers! Good to know!

[STEELINOX]

Excellent thread Beaumont !