CaveDwellers Latest Aquisition .....

[CaveDweller]

Good evening folks – and may I take the opportunity to introduce you to my most recent acquisition, an 18k yellow gold 6605 with the 1065 movement. As you can see from the first pictures, the watch was sold as “fully re-conditioned”, and as “mint” – and fair play who whoever did this, he’s done a pretty good job. These pics were the ones on the dealers website, together with a couple more sent to me immediately prior to purchase.









First off, I am not a “collector”, I simply bought this watch to celebrate my retirement, and the year of manufacture matches my birth date (1957). I have had a 1988 SS DJ from new which I use as a daily “beater”, and consider this as more of a “dress watch” – so to me it had to be perfect, rather than “exhibiting the rich patina of many years having been kept in a toilet bowl”. Opinions will differ (as they do), but to me, if it’s a “dress watch”, it has to look the part.

I am aware that 1065 parts are as rare as rocking horse droppings, so I don’t expect “all” the internals to be original, but the restoration was done by a “accredited Rolex watchmaker”, so I’m guessing it’s as good as it’s going to get. Obviously, the face has been completely restored, along with the “roulette” date wheel, and as regards to the 1065 butterfly movement, it’s currently keeping time at just under minus one second a day (fully wound), to a max of plus two seconds a day when worn on the wrist – an achievement in itself. We’ll see if it settles down in time.

I purchased this watch from a dealer with a reputation for spotting fakes - typically he’ll take a look at a watch, raise an eyebrow, and pass it over to his in-house watch maker for further inspection. Half an hour later, you could expect a full run down on the watch (for better or for worse). Having seen an almost identical piece on ebay (co.uk) during the same time period (that to this day raises suspicions), I opted to take the safer option, and pay through the nose for something (and someone) more reliable. This watch comes with a life-time guarantee of “authenticity”, but I accept that all that means is that it’s a genuine Rolex.

A couple of things I would bring up at this point – the serial number dictating the date being the first. 328xxx. I have searched high and low on the internet for corroborating evidence of the year, and after two weeks (at close to six hours a day), my head is spinning with information about this watch. One “reputable site” will have it at as 1956, another “reputable site” has it as 1958, but finally, I found a “reputable site” that clearly stated 1957. Is all the information out there so vague ?

Secondly, there’s the matter of “superlative” over simply “officially” certified chronometer, and when the designation was changed as regards the 1065 movement. From every reference I can find of this particular watch, the 18k gold 6605 carrying the 1065 movement, dating as far back as 1956, carry the mark “superlative” on the dial. Yet this was challenged in another thread ? I can see where the 6605 had different movements over the years, but the 1065 does seem to be “superlative”.

And lastly – the lume on the hands (or more correctly, the lack of it). I’ve seen many examples of this type of hand set without the “lume” – and a few with it in place too (on darker dials). Given that at the time this would have been Radium, (the “swiss” marking at the bottom of the dial having been correctly restored), I wonder if this was an option at the time, or taken off in subsequent services – (the stuff has a half-life of 1600 years).

Any and all comments would be appreciated - (photos of the actual watch taken by myself to follow) ……