I've found what I think is a nice 1655.......

[Jamwill79]

Hi all. My first post as a reasonably long-standing collector/lurker!

Would those of you interested in 1655's care to cast your eyes over this piece I've recently found? I have done all the due diligence I can and I'm very, very happy with it.

I'm told it's a one owner piece. Can't tell if it's been polished, perhaps a little but the chamfers are quite nice still and it's in good overall condition. I could go on with my observations, but see what you think from my very average and quickly taken pictures. Everything seems to add up and it's a full set with original purchase receipt which makes it so appealing to me.

Thank you in advance

[Dan S]

Looks nice at first glance. Have you seen between the lugs, and maybe inside? What about the bracelet?

[Jamwill79]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Looks nice at first glance. Have you seen between the lugs, and maybe inside? What about the bracelet?

I haven't personally checked between the lugs, but the contact I'm getting it from has and it all checks out. He's 10% trustworthy and I know him. I'll be having a look next week.

Bracelet is really nice and tight and not far off new I'd say. Just superficial marks. Clasp has an 'A' stamp which ties in with the 3.9 million serial I think, although the watch was purchased in 1978.

Running accurately even if the amplitude is a touch low (220 ish) and the bear error at 0.6.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Jamwill79

He's 10% trustworthy ...

There would seem to be some room for improvement.

But seriously, I'm a believer in buying the watch, not the seller. People seem trustworthy until money is at stake, and even trustworthy people make mistakes. So check everything out for yourself. And if you want help, post actual photos instead of typing numbers that we can't verify.

[psv]

It has been polished, I think. The chamfers looks a bit too broad and even.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Jamwill79

Hi all. My first post as a reasonably long-standing collector/lurker!

Would those of you interested in 1655's care to cast your eyes over this piece I've recently found? I have done all the due diligence I can and I'm very, very happy with it.

I'm told it's a one owner piece. Can't tell if it's been polished, perhaps a little but the chamfers are quite nice still and it's in good overall condition. I could go on with my observations, but see what you think from my very average and quickly taken pictures. Everything seems to add up and it's a full set with original purchase receipt which makes it so appealing to me.

Thank you in advance

It has definitely been polished. Chamfers are nice but a little too wide for the era of the watch. It appears to have a nice dial and hands which are fairly important when buying vintage.

[TuRo]

Looks like an honest worn (paint missing/l-holes extended creep, later service plexi) unmolested 1655 tbh.... good dial and h/s. On such a piece often the orig. bezel (has lost any radial brushed napp as this has from continual handling) and case and bracelet have this slightly shiny look.
Should be c 2.85 -5.6 million serial range btw.

[springer]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Looks like an honest worn (paint missing/l-holes extended creep, later service plexi) unmolested 1655 tbh.... good dial and h/s. On such a piece often the orig. bezel (has lost any radial brushed napp as this has from continual handling) and case and bracelet have this slightly shiny look.
Should be c 2.85 -5.6 million serial range btw.

I'll have to disagree Paul. The chamfers seem to have been a fairly recent restoration - are without any scratches or nicks and are oversized as found on many case restorations. There are hardly any significant scratches to be found anywhere on the case. This is not indicative of a 50-year-old watch. While parts of the watch might be unpolished (i.e. the bezel) the case has been worked on - without a doubt - and is not an unpolished watch.

[swish77]

As stated above, nice-looking 1655, but the case has definitely been polished and probably several times. Lugs ain't right and look how small and rounded the crown guards are. Just depends how picky you are about such things. And if not, don't worry about it and just enjoy a cool vintage Explorer II.

Here is my (former) 1655 to compare the crown guards. The original crown guards are actually quite long on this reference.

[Jamwill79]

Thank you all for your comments and apologies for my typos!!

Anyway, I'll try and get some pictures from between the lugs. Regarding the chamfers, yes I agree that they almost look too exaggerated but I think it's the angle of my pictures. I've looked at hundreds of pictures of these whilst researching and a lot of the ones I've found of supposedly nos pieces have very similar looking chamfers from that same angle but look quite understated from others I also appreciate that Rolex finished some cases slightly differently to others......

Regarding one comment about the plexi, how can you tell if it's original or service please?

Thanks

[subx]

OP:
what's the serial number on the garantee since you have the ' full set ' ?
where did you find it?

to me this story is not adding up.

1) that looks like an MK II bezel and an MK I dial, which is correct = BUT you would expect a straight seconds hand and this is not
2) that case looks ' pimped up '
3) the bracelet is not original , later/ modern
4) the crystal is not original

serial number will confirm either a dealer offering with " recent service " .... or a frankenwatch

PS: ... and unless pics are distorting too much, I don't even think that bezel is legit.

[Jamwill79]

Originally Posted by subx

OP:
what's the serial number on the garantee since you have the ' full set ' ?
where did you find it?

to me this story is not adding up.

1) that looks like an MK II bezel and an MK I dial, which is correct = BUT you would expect a straight seconds hand and this is not
2) that case looks ' pimped up '
3) the bracelet is not original , later/ modern
4) the crystal is not original

serial number will confirm either a dealer offering with " recent service " .... or a frankenwatch

PS: ... and unless pics are distorting too much, I don't even think that bezel is legit.

Thanks, loads of interesting points. To answer your questions/points:-
3982257 is the serial no. Receipt is from 78.
Found it at a jewelers who have modern and vintage pieces. I know the owner.
I also think it's a mk 2 bezel but I think its a mk 2 dial.
How does the case look pumped up?
Bracelet has the correct numbers and so do the end links. Clasp is stamped with an 'A'
Please tell me more about plexus??

Thanks

[Jamwill79]

Originally Posted by subx

OP:
what's the serial number on the garantee since you have the ' full set ' ?
where did you find it?

to me this story is not adding up.

1) that looks like an MK II bezel and an MK I dial, which is correct = BUT you would expect a straight seconds hand and this is not
2) that case looks ' pimped up '
3) the bracelet is not original , later/ modern
4) the crystal is not original

serial number will confirm either a dealer offering with " recent service " .... or a frankenwatch

PS: ... and unless pics are distorting too much, I don't even think that bezel is legit.

Thanks, loads of interesting points. To answer your questions/points:-

3982257 is the serial no. Receipt is from 78.

Found it at a jewelers who have modern and vintage pieces. I know the owner.

I also think it's a mk 2 bezel but I think its a mk 2 dial.

How does the case look pumped up?

Bracelet has the correct numbers and so do the end links. Clasp is stamped with an 'A'

Please tell me more about plexis??

Thanks

[Jamwill79]

Certificate and purchase receipt both seem to add up....

[Pete_mcC]

Originally Posted by subx

1) that looks like an MK II bezel and an MK I dial, which is correct = BUT you would expect a straight seconds hand and this is not

3) the bracelet is not original , later/ modern

Judging by the alignment of the X of Rolex and the L of perpetual the dial is a Mark II so good for a 1972-1977 watch
Bracelet is 1976 A code clasp with solid links so seems correct.
Straight hands were only on Mark I up to 1974 so would never appear on this watch, so this one looks good.
Bezel looks to be Mark two, again good for a 1973-1977 watch



Currently people get so wound up about polishing, but if a vintage Tool watch was serviced by Rolex in the 70/80/90s then it’s been refinished.
No one cared about originality back then and most people liked their watches to look like new when they came back from a Rolex service.

Nice thing is the dial, hands, bezel and bracelet look original which is more important in my eyes as there’s nothing more jarring than a service bezel or dial on these and, as you say, the crown guards varied a lot from new (although the later ones and service cases had big ones far more like the later 16550.
I’m guessing it’s a U.K. watch with those full Bexley bevels, they always added those at service as it’s a quick way to remove traces of dents or nicks

The biggest issue is always cost. It’s fine people saying ‘it should be unpolished’ but that adds to the cost as that’s the fashionable thing to demand so dealers know to up the cost of any watch they can claim to be unpolished (most have been, no matter what they say). I’d rather a reasonably priced one with original dial/hand/bezel/bracelet that’s been serviced and refinished than a hugely expensive one I feel I could never wear.

I stupidly spent years searching for the perfect one and just watched the prices double before I pulled the pin so it’s fair to say you’ll never find that cheap, original and unpolished example.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Pete_McC

Judging by the alignment of the X of Rolex and the L of perpetual the dial is a Mark II so good for a 1972-1977 watch
Bracelet is 1976 A code clasp with solid links so seems correct.
Straight hands were only on Mark I up to 1974 so would never appear on this watch, so this one looks good.
Bezel looks to be Mark two, again good for a 1973-1977 watch



Currently people get so wound up about polishing, but if a vintage Tool watch was serviced by Rolex in the 70/80/90s then it’s been refinished.
No one cared about originality back then and most people liked their watches to look like new when they came back from a Rolex service.

Nice thing is the dial, hands, bezel and bracelet look original which is more important in my eyes as there’s nothing more jarring than a service bezel or dial on these and, as you say, the crown guards varied a lot from new (although the later ones and service cases had big ones far more like the later 16550.
I’m guessing it’s a U.K. watch with those full Bexley bevels, they always added those at service as it’s a quick way to remove traces of dents or nicks

The biggest issue is always cost. It’s fine people saying ‘it should be unpolished’ but that adds to the cost as that’s the fashionable thing to demand so dealers know to up the cost of any watch they can claim to be unpolished (most have been, no matter what they say). I’d rather a reasonably priced one with original dial/hand/bezel/bracelet that’s been serviced and refinished than a hugely expensive one I feel I could never wear.

I stupidly spent years searching for the perfect one and just watched the prices double before I pulled the pin so it’s fair to say you’ll never find that cheap, original and unpolished example.

Interesting post Pete. Thanks for the thoughts.

Regarding your comment about people getting "wound up about polishing" - this is a concern that is related to those selling polished or refinished watches and claiming they are original. That irritates many collectors and rightly-fully so. Based on my many years of experience, Most collectors don't seem to be concerned with "polished" or refinished watches, they just want a nice watch, that looks good on their wrist and has been properly represented to them before a purchase. Again, having a polished/refinished watch isn't a concern to most collectors, but instead, it becomes a concern when a watch is misrepresented.

And yes, back in the day, no one cared about the matters that drive watch collectors now, but, the same thing holds true for anything that is collectable these days.

Nice, unpolished watches are always a bonus - they are hard to find and bring a premium when found. I've yet to meet more than one or two collectors that have an affinity for ratty, unpolished watches with case, dial and hand issues. The "charm" has worn off these examples many, many years ago.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Pete_McC

Currently people get so wound up about polishing, but if a vintage Tool watch was serviced by Rolex in the 70/80/90s then it’s been refinished.

Nothing wrong with a polished/refinished watch, unless the watch is misrepresented as unpolished. The other issue is too much polishing that excessively alters the shape of the case/lugs/crown guards. Not all refinishing is the same. Sometimes it's expertly done. Other times it's a hatchet job.

In this case, I find the crown guards excessively polished (see below). If you compare to the other examples on this thread, you'll see a big difference.

That said, case condition (within reason) doesn't matter to some vintage Rolex lovers. And that's OK too.

[Pete_mcC]

Originally Posted by swish77

Nothing wrong with a polished/refinished watch, unless the watch is misrepresented as unpolished.

Totally agree, especially the second part.

Proving something is unpolished is so contentious that a number of watch forums ban the use of the word in any advert. It all comes down to personal preference and individual judgement as to the state of the case, especially as the hand factory finishing on these pieces was unique to each watch.
There are two watches in this thread saying their crown guards are as original, both totally different. Mines been polished at some point as it’s been Rolex serviced in its past but looks totally different again.

No seller can ever say ‘it’s unpolished’ unless they have owned the watch from new, the best they can say is that the case looks as it left the factory, or it’s been well finished.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Pete_McC

There are two watches in this thread saying their crown guards are as original, both totally different.

I believe there's only one member on this thread who stated his watch is unpolished. I'd tend to agree with him. Tough to know 100 percent whether it's ever been lightly touched up, of course, but that case looks factory to my eyes, with honest wear and tear, and a little sleeve polish on the crown guards.

When you've stared at enough of them through the decades, they're easier to identify.

[Pete_mcC]

Originally Posted by swish77

I believe there's only one member on this thread who stated his watch is unpolished.

When you've stared at enough of them through the decades, they're easier to identify.

Totally agree, I said ‘as original’ rather than ‘unpolished’ exactly for that reason because obviously the first of the two watch has been refinished, but even after that refinish the guards are much larger than the second (although that may be photo angles etc)

Experience is great in identifying superior examples of vintage watches but, to me, polishing is near impossible to identify with absolute certainty. I have a lovely ‘84 16550 that has beautiful, original age and patina built up over decades much like that lovely 1655 above, except the first owner told me it was lightly polished by Rolex in ‘88 so it’s only got 35 years of age not the full 39. Loved his honesty but you know that 99% of dealers would call it unpolished!

Back on track, the issue is always cost. People can aways say ‘you can find better examples’ but it’s down to cost. Sharper, less polished, more original will always be more expensive and that may put them out of someone’s budget. Owning the best example in their budget is the important thing, and that’s where your experience will shine.

[Pete_mcC]

Nice!

[Jamwill79]

Originally Posted by Pete_McC

Nice!

Thanks for your comments. Appreciated.

[Gopher1]

I have spent the last several months poring over articles, listings, and photos of this model in search of my own. I have handled only two in the metal. All that said, this example looks good to me aside from some questions on the bezel. I have seen so many fake and replacement bezels that I am always skeptical of any bezel.

On this example it is difficult to be sure due to the angles and quality of the photos. It does look closest to a Mark 2, but the inconsistency of the divider lines raises a question for me.

Regarding polishing, I feel the same as Pete and like Springer's explanation. To me, any 50-year-old Rolex tool watch that is listed as unpolished is likely either a replacement case or a fairy tale (or was forgotten in a drawer for decades).

Other than the possible question on bezel authenticity, I would have no concerns with this watch from what is posted.

Looks like a nice find!

[Dan S]

I could be wrong, and the photos don't really allow a definitive answer. But my initial impression is that the bezel is legit, but that someone has done a somewhat sloppy job of filling in some of the painted lines and numerals.

[Jamwill79]

Some dreadful pics from between the lugs. Looks like a child has engraved the numbers!!!

Can't wait to give it a nice clean. It's disgusting in there.

[Andad]

Thanks for the information John, Pete and all.

[coolbreeze]

I agree with Springer that the case is refinished for the same reasons. Here is my unpolished 1655.

[Pete_mcC]

Originally Posted by coolbreeze

Here is my unpolished 1655.

Potentially provocative sounding question, but not meant that way; how do you know it’s not polished?

[Gopher1]

Originally Posted by Pete_McC

Potentially provocative sounding question, but not meant that way; how do you know it’s not polished?

I thought the same!

[77T]

The prior comments by insightful, experienced collectors make perfect sense.

For the OP, what matters is you got a watch you wanted at a price you were willing to pay.

It’s a classic and has been “homaged” by Tudor and that’s impressive.