ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
13 April 2015, 07:49 PM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: London
Posts: 5
|
What have I got?
Hi all, first post so please be gentle..
I've owned this watch for over 20 years. I was sold to my wife as a '65 Submariner, but I'm not sure it is "as advertised". I've take the strap off, and it's marked 5513 between the top lugs, and 979237 between the bottom lugs. From my limited research, it would appear that the serial number makes no sense relative to the model and dial. The strap is marked 78360 and what looks to be 585. I own quite a few old Rolex watches, and FWIW this one feels "right". Can anybody shed any light on what I have here? Thanks in anticipation, John |
13 April 2015, 08:17 PM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kingstown
Posts: 58,279
|
Serial # indicates 1963
|
13 April 2015, 08:23 PM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: London
Posts: 5
|
Thanks MonBK.
All the references I can find suggest the serial is correct for 1953/4.....which is what has me concerned. |
13 April 2015, 08:24 PM | #4 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2011
Real Name: Jeff
Location: Home!
Posts: 1,259
|
|
13 April 2015, 08:48 PM | #5 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Real Name: George
Location: Sydney
Watch: 5513
Posts: 1,104
|
You have a feet first dial so I would assume watch was produced 1970 and onwards unless of course the dial is not original to the watch.
|
13 April 2015, 09:13 PM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Real Name: Mike Wood
Location: Liverpool UK
Watch: Listen & Learn!
Posts: 611
|
I suspect you have missed a "1" at the start of the serial number, and that your watch is actually a 5513 from around 1966 with a later replacement dial and hands fitted.
A nice honest watch with potential... |
13 April 2015, 09:19 PM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: London
Posts: 5
|
|
14 April 2015, 10:41 AM | #8 | |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2011
Real Name: Jeff
Location: Home!
Posts: 1,259
|
Quote:
In that case, it's from end of 1963 or 1964, one of the early square crown guard models after the transition from pointed crown guards. The dial would have been gilt, meters first so this has been changed at some point during a service. Not very unusual to be honest, very common to have had these changed at some point over the past 50 years. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
14 April 2015, 11:03 AM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: mel(oz)/Yorks(uk)
Posts: 1,929
|
for me i'd say there's a digit missing ...97@@@@ would make it pcg which it isn't.
easily settled by taking the back off. |
13 April 2015, 09:05 PM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: London
Posts: 5
|
Thanks Walrus, that's what I figured. How do I go about ascertaining what's really going on here? I guess I find a local expert. Any suggestions for central London?
|
14 April 2015, 01:44 PM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 7,630
|
Very nice!
|
15 April 2015, 01:32 AM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: London
Posts: 5
|
Thanks all.
I'm into vintage guitars, so am used to the potential for sillyness across decades.....or outright fakes for that matter. Is there an easy way to take off the back, or is it a job for a capable repair person? |
15 April 2015, 01:45 AM | #13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,298
|
Easy job for a watch maker with the correct tools
__________________
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.