Local guy wants to trade his 5513 for my 16610. Opinions??

[chris_nor_cal]

I've seen the watch on this guy a few times and struck up conversation today about how much i liked his watch. i was halfway joking that I'd like to trade him my Z series 16610 submariner and he bit on it. I know fairly little about vintages but I'm pretty sure its a 5513. No gold surrounds, t <25, 660=200m. The dial and hands look immaculate, the crystal is scratched and it seems like it has regular wear all over. he said the bracelet was replaced and he thinks the dial and hands are original. the guy says he had it serviced in san francisco and has all the box, papers, etc. said he bought it in europe in 1972 when he was in the navy and is the original owner. I'm going to go back and get better pics this week. what do you guys think? good deal?

I apologize I know this picture is atrocious, but cell phone cameras suck, I will go back and take better pictures later with my digital camera. I would most likely have this thing serviced by rolex and polished up nicely. I'm just worried about fakes, frankenwatches, etc.

[mike]

Boy, I admit I can't a thing from the pic other than it looks like what a 5513 should look like. LOL! Assuming all correct and with Box and paper etc... I'd do it.

I would like to see what shape the case and lugs are in though. A service will run about $500 USD so that has to be considered. Still I think you would be ahead of the game.

[Beef]

Yeah, a 5513 in decent shape is, IMHO, a trade up. Of course, like Mike, I am a vintage guy. It may have been Mike that recently stated that the 5513 was the new MUST HAVE vintage piece that was still affordable. As always, condition is everything. Good luck and post more pics, if you can.

[roadcarver]

Will you miss the date feature?

[chris_nor_cal]

i think i will miss the date feature, but this will give me a good excuse to buy the new GMT. i don't know, i just think a vintage submariner is so cool. obviously, I'd prefer it to have a date. If I traded for this I wonder if I could trade into a vintage model with the date.

[etp095]

If you get the 5513 I would only trade up to a vintage sd.you would have vintage and a date to boot.looking forward to more Pics.

[sleedawg]

Chris,

If you don't trade for the 5513 or do and regret it. I'd love to pick it up for more than you were asking for your Sub. I've been searching for a Rolex Sub (date or no date) or GMT from 1972. PM me. I tried to PM you, but your PM box is full.

[chris_nor_cal]

pms working now. so how would you guys reccomend working this. ill take some good pics soon but what about checking out the movement. we could do it at an ad, but im not even sure an AD would have the proper tool to remove this old style caseback or even know if what they were looking at is original. shoudl i should take pics and show them to the experts here?

[mic6]

if it is gen do it
amazing trade

[BiG JeEzY]

In terms of collectibility I say go for it. The 5513 still remains a highly desired timepiece in all the sports models.

In terms of functionality, hold on to your Sub Date 16610. The watch has a date feature and is water resistant to 300 meters.

I just gave you both sides to consider. If it was me personally, I would keep the Sub Date. I really would miss the date feature. The 5513 is still an excellent and rugged watch and is the perfect daily wearer too but I really want a date on a watch that I own.

Best of luck on the deal!

[mike]

Originally Posted by chris_nor_cal

pms working now. so how would you guys reccomend working this. ill take some good pics soon but what about checking out the movement. we could do it at an ad, but im not even sure an AD would have the proper tool to remove this old style caseback or even know if what they were looking at is original. shoudl i should take pics and show them to the experts here?

Close detailed scans would be a big help. Not only of the dial, but the back, lugs, bezel, etc....
Removing the bracelet to make sure the reference number is correct and the serial number is correct is also important.

I would have the back removed to see the condition of the movement as well.

[delldeaton]

If you've checked the watch out as has been recommended here and more, I, personally, would take this trade (and I own a 16610 and tend to favor current over vintage).

That said, this deal seems too good to be true.

Be careful.

[Lol-x]

I agree with Mike and I do like the 5513 a lot.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Sounds like a good trade to me, Chris. Will look forward to seeing more pics.

[Howie]

If the 5513 is in good condition, it sounds like a very good trade.

[watchnut]

I replaced a vintage GMT with a 16610. I miss the lug holes and the domed acrylic crystal. There is something about the feel of a vintage watch. When I wear my Daytona I find myself missing the date, though. I still would be tempted to take the deal.

[sherwin]

sounds fair to me. just check it out carefully before proceeding.

[KG4LHO]

If it checks out, I would do it even though I just got my 16610. Like you said, that would give you a reason to pick up a new GMT and you would end up with a Vintage Sub that WILL increase in value. Get all the ducks in a row as far as original dial, hands, bezel, and back though. If its been buggered, no trade. Just IMHO, Wesley

[llamaofdoom]

As long as it's real, you just can't go wrong with that trade.

[GoldenBear]

He didn't seem like the 1st owner. I'd go to Shreve to authenticate it, if you decide to do it.

[chris_nor_cal]

Originally Posted by GoldenBear

He didn't seem like the 1st owner. I'd go to Shreve to authenticate it, if you decide to do it.

what makes you feel this way?

[Gurmot]

If he bought it new in 1972 I'd say he was the original owner. The earlier 5513 had the depth rating in Metres then Feet. After about 1968 they switched to Feet before Metres. I would say that this watch could well be from 1972 and the papers should back this up if they are available.

I say go for it. It looks like a fantastic deal and the 5513 is a very cool watch.

[Mr Sandman]

Yeh I would go for it too
I think that the 5513 will only ever gain in value so you cant loose but the 16610 sub although a classic watch is so common in numbers that it will decline in value first before it begins to gain again.

I would flip if its genuine with all boxes,papers etc.....You could always pick up a used 16610 sub at a later date(no pun intended)

Jim

[^fai^]

Honestly, I can get a 16610 anytime anywhere but NOT the 5513. It's getting more rare and price shooting rocket high in the market.

If the condition of the 5513 is I would go for 5513 and that's my 2 cents.

LH

[chris_nor_cal]

OK guys heres the pictures, I took a lot!:

























I took the bracelet off the serial on the bottom says 2703021 above it is says "STAINLESS STEEL"
The top lug says REGISTERED something and then 5513 underneath it.
One thing I noticed is there is no rubber gasket on the crown stem. Also when I shake the watch hard on my arm I can hear the rotor whirring around like what I've heard on a panerai. nice slower ticking than my 16610. the bezel and insert and very loosely on there and the insert almost falls out sometimes by itself.

Interesting to note, there is no click mechanism in the bezel as I took photos to show. it doesnt even look like it fell out--it looks like there never was one--the bezel freely spins. was a racheting bezel something on later models?

Anyone know what year this is based on the serial? I know its a bit beat and I suppose it will need to go to RSC for service before I will wear it. I'm pretty excited by the prospect of getting a vintage. What do you all think???

[Gurmot]

I love it. It looks like a very honest and well loved watch.

Crystal - try some polywatch or car polish or even toothpaste. You'll be amazed how well the crystal will polish.

Bezel - They didn't have a ratchet. My 5513 also turns both ways. You may be able to get the bezel to stay on by adjusting / bending the retaining clip but be careful not to lose it.

Bracelet - Be very, very, very careful that the pins in the bracelet are not worn out. The watch could drop-off unexpectedly. This happened to mine but I saw it in time.

Crown - looks like the original twinlock crown and tube. Many 5513 were "upgraded" by RSC to the triplock. I think this is the reason you can't see the extra o-ring.

Just a lovelly, classic and understated watch. One of the best that Rolex ever made in my opinion. I would wear it as it is for a while, plenty of time to get it serviced later. Just my opinion of course.

Cheers - Simon

[chris_nor_cal]

so this looks like a 1969 year then i suppose. it must have been nos when he bought it
Serial Number Year
1871000 1966
1994956 1966
2163900 1967
2426800 1968
2555384 1970
2689700 1969
2952600 1970
3215500 1971
3478400 1972
3741300 1973
4004200 1974

[Gurmot]

This is my 5513 with a cal 321 Omega Speedmaster, both from 1967.

Cheers - Simon

[Beef]

It could use the overhaul, but looks like the real deal. I would jump on it. Beware that the RSC will want to change the bezel, dial and hands. Specify in advance not to do that. When the case is refinished, crystal polished, band brushed finish redone, it will look great. The worn bezel will give it character and authenticity. All of Simon's great advice is a must. And the RSC will do it for about $500. Good luck.

[SSD]

Yeah, it looks as if a trip to RSC or equilivant would be beneficial, but well worth it. Look at it this way, too: A 16610 may be more easily replaced. I would personally not trade mine, but at the end of the day I would wonder if I should have. The main person to please here is you, and another 16610 will be far less costly to come across for the next few years, than a 5513, IMO. Just my 0.02.