5513 1971 or 1989?

[robinmgb]

I’m looking at buying either a 1971 5513 or later 1989 model, I’m assuming the 1971 is better value as price difference is £1000.
Both are box only, the 71 has original dial, hands, insert, bracelet, end links and clasp, case clearly been polished but pretty good, bracelet has quite a lot of stretch.
1989 obviously being that much newer has a much tighter 93150 bracelet with original clasp, original dial, insert but hands have been replaced.
Is it obvious the 1971 per serif dial would be the better buy as original or would the later model still make sense?
Sorry no pics as still can’t ever manage to upload on here!

[1665fan]

Need pics but I would get the 71

[brandrea]

IMHO, if you’re not looking for anything specific other than a 5513, condition trumps all. Buy the one that’s in the best shape

[Kingface66]

I’d get the ‘71 ten times out of ten. Not a fan of WGS dials, personally.

[swish77]

Even without seeing photos, I'd lean toward the 1971 Sub, primarily because it sounds as if it's got all original parts while the 1989 Sub has replaced (luminova?) hands. That would bug me.

That said, as stated above, overall condition is the most important factor. I'd much rather have a crisp '89 5513, even with the WG surround dial, than a trashed '71 5513.

Post photos!

[NickD1975]

The 71. There's so many other choices in a similar price range that mean a WGS 5513 is hard to justify over a 5 digit sapphire sub, or even a 16600 SD. The 71 is very different aesthetically.

[Dan S]

It will depend on condition and originality. But if everything you say is true and correct, then the earlier watch sounds like a better value. However, if you want useful feedback, you may want to put more effort into linking images.

[XavierM]

I am surprises by the 1000GBP difference between the 2 watches.
are these offered by the same seller ? Pro ?

[robinmgb]

They are with different dealers, price difference is plus £1150 for the 1971 model.
I think I prefer the older model without wgs but the stretched 9315 bracelet does concern me a little, imagine I could get it tightened in future

[XavierM]

Bracelet restauration is possible for a about 300-500 GBP and IMO, 9315/7836 have a very nice vintage feeling (noise and weight)
It would still be possible to get a 93150 for daily wear if you prefer this feeling.
Bracelet should not be the main reason for choosing between both watches.

Regarding both watches, I suggest you post some HD pictures (dial, serial and ref engravings, caseback, movement, bracelet clasp etc) and give all the informations you have before pulling the trigger

[tifosi]

For me...get the one without the white gold surrounds on the dial.

[Filipão]

I want and am looking for one WGS 5513...

[indianmachine]

Love my 1989 5513. The glossy dial coupled with the acrylic crystal creates a very cool mirror effect.

[Old Expat Beast]

I'd go 1989 then you can get a service dial and hands from Rolex but retain the original look for that period but with full lume. In fact that's what I did, about 10 years ago.

[Zeus6542]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

I'd go 1989 then you can get a service dial and hands from Rolex but retain the original look for that period but with full lume. In fact that's what I did, about 10 years ago.

Beautiful. 14060? Looks very good, clean. Miss the cyclops at all?

Ps. Nope, later year 5513. I didn't realize the later 5513's came with white gold surrounds. Cool. Such a clean look.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Zeus6542

Beautiful. 14060? Looks very good, clean. Miss the cyclops at all?

Thanks, no it's a 5513 from circa 1989. I'm not a cyclops fan, which is one of the reasons why I have mostly Grand Seiko and Seiko divers and vintage watches.

[77T]

Without pics here nobody could comment on the ‘71 with purported original dial.

If that dial was good and could be verified, I’d say the ‘71 despite the wonky 9315 bracelet. Then get that bracelet refurb’d by Rolliworks and you’d be good to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TuRo]

Old is gold, esp' on a sub.