DRSD with MK2 Dial & Superdome

[A.K.]

Anybody care to look this one over..........Dial luminous is white while the hands luminous is cream yellow.

Under a 10x it seems like there is a very thin to no luminous applied....could it have been removed at one point? Maybe is was never applied?

[swish77]

Photos?

[A.K.]

[A.K.]

Keep getting message that my posts must be approved by moderator.....bummer, image was included in 1st post.

[A.K.]

temporary image hosting

[A.K.]

Image posted

[BrazenC5]

Originally Posted by A.K.

Anybody care to look this one over..........Dial luminous is white while the hands luminous is cream yellow.

Under a 10x it seems like there is a very thin to no luminous applied....could it have been removed at one point? Maybe is was never applied?

Most likely started flaking/cracking, uneven patina, etc over time, then completely removed by a watchmaker.

Price should be reflected accordinly.

[Tom1675]

Originally Posted by BrazenC5

Most likely started flaking/cracking, uneven patina, etc over time, then completely removed by a watchmaker.

Price should be reflected accordinly.

I don't know about luminous never being applied, have you heard of this happening by Rolex? I will say the inconsistency of this piece would make it unwearable to me.

Price reflected accordingly would need to be a steep discount...

[BrazenC5]

Originally Posted by Tom1675

I don't know about luminous never being applied, have you heard of this happening by Rolex? I will say the inconsistency of this piece would make it unwearable to me.

Price reflected accordingly would need to be a steep discount...

No, havent heard of luminous material not applied.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Lol-x]

The hands look original with the patina one might well expect.

The dial does appear to have the lume removed.....or it is a new old stock dial. One really needs to have a very close inspection which is not possible with the photo. What does the person who owns the watch say???

[A.K.]

Right click on image and open in a new window, I uploaded with a site that will allow you to view the full resolution image.

That said, I believe that I once read online that Rolex had dials without lume applied but I can't seem to find that reference.....The process of "washing" a dial's luminous plots would leave scratches or some kind of evidence on the dial afterwards no?

[scooba]

I would be asking the experts ,Haywood,Mike,Jed,AndrewShear,Michael Morgan

[A.K.]

Originally Posted by scooba

I would be asking the experts ,Haywood,Mike,Jed,AndrewShear,Michael Morgan

How should I go about doing this....PM them via the forum directly?

[scooba]

Originally Posted by A.K.

How should I go about doing this....PM them via the forum directly?

At the top of the vintage there is a sticky on decent vintage dealers start there

[rolstaff]

Difficult to judge, based on this one photo, but I think, that is not a washed dial....

[A.K.]

The watch is a 1.7Mil serial, case back is not PP but has the last 3 digits from the case serial and the IV.67 stamping, it's also a thin case.

As far as I can establish all the lettering on the dial, the lining up of the fonts, the spacing, The size of some fonts, the sloppy coronet and the presence of a chocolate dial have established this is an authentic MK2 dial.

The plots on the other hand are a different story, especially seeing the hands have the beautiful patina you would expect to see on a very, very clean example of a ref 1665.

The watched was serviced many years back and the crown was updated (triple dot) but not the tube.


Re-cropping of the dial from the full resolution image, maybe it makes better.

[csrss]

fwiw, I own a very similar watch with similar looking plots. MK2 thin case DRSD, 1.7Mil serial. Original owner was my father, and then passed along to me some years ago. Unfortunately, I know little of the service history while he wore it.

[csrss]

I messed up the image upload, but pictures can be seen in this thread.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=389037