Submariner 5513 Comex - what do you think?

[springer]

I was asked to look at this 5513 Sub Comex on ebay for a fellow here and I have to say that without doing some additional research, I'm no in-house expert on these models. One thing I did observe was the case back appears to be lazer engraved which would not be good. Everything else seems to be correct. I also observed the inventory number on the back of the case and inside the case back are different, if they are in fact some type of inventory number - but, why would they stamp both the outside and inside of the case back?.

So, if you have some knowledge of these models, check out the link below and fire away.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Role...YAAOSwAKxWW65W

[springer]

I've been advised that the three digit number stamped on the inside of the case back is 919 which matches the last three digits of the serial number. The number on the outside of the case back is 197.

[freefly]

I am no COMEX expert either, but my guess is that it's probably legit, but not "100% original" as the seller claims. I've never seen a "bleeding" serif dial on any of the early COMEX 5513/5514 watches, so I am guessing it is a replacement dial. Plots are quite a bit darker than the hands as well. Also, I believe the bracelet should be a 9315 not a 93150. That is less of an issue (especially if disclosed), but if the seller states "100% original" & "100% correct" then one starts to wonder what else isn't original...

I think the "laser engraved" look of the case back may just be an effect of the lighting. I'd definitely want a closer examination as a prospective buyer though!

Personally, I wouldn't be dropping that kind of coin on a COMEX watch without some serious documentation. Just my $.02, YMMV, yada, yada...

[Fredrik]

I agree with freefly, the band is not original to the watch, it looks like a mid 80s 93150.

[springer]

After doing a little more research last night, I found a couple more photos attached below that seem to depict a genuine 5513 Comex.

In comparing these with the photos in the ebay auction, I see no issues with the dial. Hands match very close and could possibly be original or replacements - either way, it is not pertinent since many Subs have had their hands replaced. The bracelet is a later replacement which is not uncommon at all with vintage Submariners.

The case back in the auction photo appears to be the same as the case back depicted here. The possibility exists that the lighting on the case back gives the appearance of a lazer engraving vs a stamped, correct engraving.

I'll have H. Milton visit this thread and have him take a look.

[Cryten]

That's the kind of watch you buy in person and pay an expert to give you a professional opinion, surely no one in their right mind would buy it from ebay.

[roadkillrob]

Originally Posted by Cryten

That's the kind of watch you buy in person and pay an expert to give you a professional opinion, surely no one in their right mind would buy it from ebay.

This, for 60 grand - you get on a plane and buy in person at minimum!

[GGGMT]

OP: replacement hands certainly are "pertinent" if seller claims 100% original. It's all about credibility and veracity, as you surely know.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by springer

In comparing these with the photos in the ebay auction, I see no issues with the dial. Hands match very close and could possibly be original or replacements - either way, it is not pertinent since many Subs have had their hands replaced. The bracelet is a later replacement which is not uncommon at all with vintage Submariners.

As mentioned, my issues with the dial are that I've never seen a "bleeding" serif dial on any legitimate COMEX 5513 (look at the "L" in ROLEX). If you have, then no worries. Maybe they existed, but I have just never seen one. FWIW, I've never seen lume that far off-center on the indices either. Sometimes you will see shrinkage occur, and a bit of the underlying white show, but on this dial it looks like the lume was simply not applied correctly, and has a strange "dusted" look on the areas where it's off center. It just doesn't look right to me.

Regarding the dial/hands matching, the only hand that even comes close is the second hand lollipop. The hour and minute hands are off IMO. You say it's not pertinent, but I disagree. If the dial is not original, it certainly affects the value. The hands are the same, but just to a lesser degree. If they have been replaced, then the watch can no longer be considered "100% original" which is how it's being represented. Same goes for the bracelet. Yes, the primary value is in the head, but if you are going to list a watch as "100% correct/original" with such a glaring omission, then it just opens the door to question the rest of the watch IMO. The seller would have been better off just disclosing the "unknowns" to begin with.

Originally Posted by springer

The case back in the auction photo appears to be the same as the case back depicted here. The possibility exists that the lighting on the case back gives the appearance of a lazer engraving vs a stamped, correct engraving.

Yep, as mentioned previously I think it is just the lighting. An additional photo from a different angle could clear it up in no time.

[springer]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

OP: replacement hands certainly are "pertinent" if seller claims 100% original. It's all about credibility and veracity, as you surely know.

Thanks for your expert advice. Whether a high-dollar 30 or 40-year-old Rolex has replacement hands is not pertinent to me. What is pertinent is whether the watch is as described...i.e. genuine. There are many sellers listing watches with incorrect dials, hands, case backs and accessories etc. Many times, most of these sellers wouldn't know whether the hands were replaced if it was written on them.

I guess the jury is out on this one. Good luck ebayers!

[Haywood_Milton]

There are elements here that would appear to be correct.

Here is my own non-logo Comex 5513 if you wish to compare the dial (though I was referring above to criteria wider than this) :



And the case back (albeit mine is an early one, with issue number below 50) :



In any event, $59,500 even at pre-Brexit exchange rates is far, far more than I believe the watch enquired about by the OP to be worth.

KRs,

Haywood

[Haywood_Milton]

Originally Posted by springer

I'll have H. Milton visit this thread and have him take a look.

"I'll have my man summoned from below stairs immediately. Milton! Milton! MILTON!"

[Haywood_Milton]

Oh, and I think there is a clear sticker on that case-back, which very commonly makes for a deceptive photograph.

Haywood