Red sub 1973 crown

[MellyVinelli]

Hello,

I have a 1973 red sub SN 330xxxx and I am not sure whether it should come with a triplock crown or whether it was a service replacement. It only saw real AD service in 2012 and the watchmaker there was very knowledgeable about vintage watches. The crown did fall out with the stem and I’m not sure if the crown had to be replaced or not. I don’t remember exactly what he did. But he did educate me on the red sub which was a gift to my dad from my grandad back around 1973 when he went started Pharmacy program in university.

I am confused about whether the submariner changed to triplock crowns by 1973 and when they started the roll out but mainly I just want to know whether this is a service replacement or original.

[watchfreak207]

Hello,
I have a 1969 Red Sub, the crown has no 3 dots. just the crown. Hope this helps.

[MellyVinelli]

Originally Posted by watchfreak207

Hello,
I have a 1969 Red Sub, the crown has no 3 dots. just the crown. Hope this helps.

I would expect that given you have a ‘69 which had twinlock crowns. My reading leads me to believe that 1970 was the first year of tri-lock. I think quite a few people who serviced their watches later wouldve had a tri-lock crown retrofitted for improved water resistance. However for the sake of originality, congrats on having a ‘69 red sub with original crown!

[0nly5iv3Digits]

Your sub would have a 702 crown. The one pictured looks correct and original, although it could be an early service 703, as the 702 and 703 are visually identical. Both are triplock, however.

Couldn’t say whether the crown is original, but it is period correct. That’s all that matters.

[MellyVinelli]

Originally Posted by 0nly5iv3Digits

Your sub would have a 702 crown. The one pictured looks correct and original, although it could be an early service 703, as the 702 and 703 are visually identical. Both are triplock, however.

Couldn’t say whether the crown is original, but it is period correct. That’s all that matters.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of the codes for different crown variations. I did a little research and it seems that although the 3 dots are on both versions, the 3 dots on the 702 are closer than the 3 dots on the 703.

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by MellyVinelli

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of the codes for different crown variations. I did a little research and it seems that although the 3 dots are on both versions, the 3 dots on the 702 are closer than the 3 dots on the 703.

I believe that is mislabelled. The one on the right is a 704. You have to look at the back / inside to differentiate a 702 from a 703 or unscrew the crown.
A period correct one for your watch is a 702

[MellyVinelli]

Originally Posted by swaini3

I believe that is mislabelled. The one on the right is a 704. You have to look at the back / inside to differentiate a 702 from a 703 or unscrew the crown.
A period correct one for your watch is a 702

Thanks. One thing to consider is that this wouldn’t have been fitted with an early service crown because the only real service it ever saw was in 2012.

Also, one thing that isn’t made crystal clear to me is the tube. The threading on the 702 tube should only go half way up? And not all the way up?

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by MellyVinelli

Thanks. One thing to consider is that this wouldn’t have been fitted with an early service crown because the only real service it ever saw was in 2012.

Also, one thing that isn’t made crystal clear to me is the tube. The threading on the 702 tube should only go half way up? And not all the way up?

I would imagine by 2012, they would have used a 704. But who knows for sure?
Yes for 702, half way up.

[swaini3]

Well the 701 was released in 1972 for a short while but we never see pictures of.
To add to the ambiguity, just looking at older spare parts manuals from years 70 -74. They mention 700, 701 only.