Rolex Submariner Dial Designations?

[ct11127]

I imagine there must be a thread about this somewhere on the forum, but I couldn't find anything.

Would the knowledgeable folks here on the forum mind helping a newbie by explaining what Mk I, II, III, etc., dials are on the Submariner? What do these designations signify?

Many thanks in advance for your help

[Beaumont Miller II]

About 10 years ago or so you would not have found much on the Internet about this. These are terms that Rolex collectors and WIS in general use to catorgorize certain dials to differentiate them from other dials within a certain reference. Among collectors there are accepted different Mk series for the 1680 red Subs, maxi dial Subs, red and white Sea Dwellers, Daytonas, and perhaps the Gmt's. The purpose is to show subtle differences in a dial in a chronological order and the serial number range that the dial was used. The difference in dials is very often very subtle such as the long F on a MkI meters first Sub. From a collecting stand point it has helped to identify a later dial that was put incorrectly in an earlier watch.

[DiamondJack]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

About 10 years ago or so you would not have found much on the Internet about this. These are terms that Rolex collectors and WIS in general use to catorgorize certain dials to differentiate them from other dials within a certain reference. Among collectors there are accepted different Mk series for the 1680 red Subs, maxi dial Subs, red and white Sea Dwellers, Daytonas, and perhaps the Gmt's. The purpose is to show subtle differences in a dial in a chronological order and the serial number range that the dial was used. The difference in dials is very often very subtle such as the long F on a MkI meters first Sub. From a collecting stand point it has helped to identify a later dial that was put incorrectly in an earlier watch.

x 2 And great explanation too John

[Mr. Clean]

Hi, so which dial belongs to a certain period? Like I'm eyeing a 3.7mil series from 1973, is this Mk I? Ty

[Beaumont Miller II]

Thanks Steve.

Originally Posted by Mr. Clean

Hi, so which dial belongs to a certain period? Like I'm eyeing a 3.7mil series from 1973, is this Mk I? Ty

For anyone to answer this question they would need to know which reference you are considering. If it is a 1680 red, then there is a sticky for a thread at the top that has all the red dials listed. It is a great review. If you are looking at a different reference, post a pic. Note none of this is set in stone and there is expected to be some overlap at certain times when there was a transition from one dial to the next.

[ct11127]

Thank you for your explanation. I'm still a bit confused though. Hope you don't mind if I ask for a bit more clarification, as I'm quite new to this.

Would the range of designations (Mk I, II, III, etc.) run through an entire reference number (e.g., a Mk I dial on a red 1680, then a Mk II for an early white 1680, and then a Mk III for a later white 1680, and so on)? Or would the range of designations (Mk I, II, III, etc.) be particular to a watch within that reference (e.g., a Mk I for an early red 1680, a Mk II for a later red 1680, and a Mk III for yet a later red 1680)? Or can either be the case depending on the watch?

Again, many thanks

[Mr. Clean]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Thanks Steve.



For anyone to answer this question they would need to know which reference you are considering. If it is a 1680 red, then there is a sticky for a thread at the top that has all the red dials listed. It is a great review. If you are looking at a different reference, post a pic. Note none of this is set in stone and there is expected to be some overlap at certain times when there was a transition from one dial to the next.

I'm so sorry forgot to mention it's a 5513. Ty

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=214320

[Beaumont Miller II]

Originally Posted by ct11127

Thank you for your explanation. I'm still a bit confused though. Hope you don't mind if I ask for a bit more clarification, as I'm quite new to this.

Would the range of designations (Mk I, II, III, etc.) run through an entire reference number (e.g., a Mk I dial on a red 1680, then a Mk II for an early white 1680, and then a Mk III for a later white 1680, and so on)? Or would the range of designations (Mk I, II, III, etc.) be particular to a watch within that reference (e.g., a Mk I for an early red 1680, a Mk II for a later red 1680, and a Mk III for yet a later red 1680)? Or can either be the case depending on the watch?

Again, many thanks

The reason this is a bit confusing is because this idea of categorizing watch dials is something that collectors thought of not Rolex. I hope this helps. Lets looks at the 1680 reference. The first 1680's had the word "Submariner" written in red. These are known as Red Subs. Early on the depth rating had the meters depth printed first and then the feet depth. Hence, the Mk I, II, and III for the Red Sub dials are for the meters first dials. Later the printing on the Red Subs changed from meters first to feet first dials. Hence, the Mk IV, V, and VI dials are feet first dials...my categorization doesn't include luminova. Then Rolex stopped printing the word "Submariner" in red. These are known as the White Subs and there is a whole different Mk series for these dials as well starting again with Mk I the White Sub dial.

[Beaumont Miller II]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clean

I'm so sorry forgot to mention it's a 5513. Ty

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=214320

I am not going to take any credit for this because I was studying this material last night from a thread that Jed wrote on the subject of the "Pre comex" dials. When Rolex went to the feet first dials in the early '70's, there were many different versions. There was a feet first without serifs on the lume, a feet first with serif on the lume, and then a feet first again without serif on the lume. The serif on the lume was pronounced on the 6 and 9 lume marker. Then follwed the Precomex dial ( please don't ask ), and then began the run of the Maxi dials, and finally this led to the gloss dials with white gold surrounds. This is what I can tell you about your dial. It is pretty blurry, but I do believe that it has no serif. I know that the serif dial is in your serial range, but yours might be ok as well. Like I said earlier, there is to be expected some overlap here.

[ct11127]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

The reason this is a bit confusing is because this idea of categorizing watch dials is something that collectors thought of not Rolex. I hope this helps. Lets looks at the 1680 reference. The first 1680's had the word "Submariner" written in red. These are known as Red Subs. Early on the depth rating had the meters depth printed first and then the feet depth. Hence, the Mk I, II, and III for the Red Sub dials are for the meters first dials. Later the printing on the Red Subs changed from meters first to feet first dials. Hence, the Mk IV, V, and VI dials are feet first dials...my categorization doesn't include luminova. Then Rolex stopped printing the word "Submariner" in red. These are known as the White Subs and there is a whole different Mk series for these dials as well starting again with Mk I the White Sub dial.

Many thanks for this post and for your clarity. Can you tell me where to find the article you mention in your subsequent post?

I am interested in this as a novice collector/enthusiast in general, but also because I'm currently looking to buy a 5513 with a Maxi dial.

[s4dan]

Hi!
Check this link out - http://doubleredseadweller.com/
First site I came accross when I inherited my fathers Rolex - which I believe to be a MK II red - Metres first, red over white Submariner, open 6's and narrow font F. Found it super informative

[Beaumont Miller II]

Originally Posted by ct11127

Many thanks for this post and for your clarity. Can you tell me where to find the article you mention in your subsequent post?

I am interested in this as a novice collector/enthusiast in general, but also because I'm currently looking to buy a 5513 with a Maxi dial.

It is the second sticky titled "Excellent Red Sub Post" in the list of threads for the Vintage Rolex Discussion. Sorry I can't cut and past with an iPhone.

[s4dan]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

It is the second sticky titled "Excellent Red Sub Post" in the list of threads for the Vintage Rolex Discussion. Sorry I can't cut and past with an iPhone.

The info from the sticky has been taken from the link I posted - just checked, thought I'd seen it before.

[pdoukas]

You can also check out the dial archive at VRF. Many great references with images of dials, usually with a serial number or date descriptor so you can get an idea of what you're looking at/for.

http://vintagerolexforum.info/vrf/dials.html

Pete

[ct11127]

Great, very helpful. Many many thanks.

I am so glad I joined this forum. Everyone is so helpful and knowledgeable.

[s4dan]

Originally Posted by ct11127

I am so glad I joined this forum. Everyone is so helpful and knowledgeable.

+1 to that - I'm new here and the banner doesn't lie - it really is: The internet's finest ROLEX community!

[jedly1]

forget the one you posted in the other thread..it got its correct non serif dial....but the damage from 53 to 60 kills it stone dead in the water.

the mk system only really applies to the maxi dials and was derived a few years ago just to make it easiest to talk about them if we applied it across all 5513 dials we'd have abourt 23 !!!

[SPARTAN2161]

wow just learned SO much! Thanks Miller II

[s4dan]

Originally Posted by jedly1

forget the one you posted in the other thread..it got its correct non serif dial....but the damage from 53 to 60 kills it stone dead in the water.

Are you referring to the scratches on the crystal as the dial is unmarked - as is the crystal now?

[jedly1]

this one ....the one the OP is/was looking at and considering buying .

the one he posted asking if it was ok...


http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/c...usi1/55133.jpg

dial is shot 53-60

[s4dan]

My bad - thought you were referring to mine Thanks for the clarification