ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
18 April 2015, 07:18 PM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 16
|
Is this dial original? Thank you
Hi Guys,
Can someone please confirm if this dial and ring is original to a 1968 5513 submariner? Should 'Submariner' come below the numbers and not above? Thank you very much. |
18 April 2015, 09:04 PM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Real Name: Greg
Location: michigan
Watch: Rolex Oyster
Posts: 4,046
|
Dial is a later one, I believe it's a Maxi dial from the late 70's
|
19 April 2015, 12:30 AM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 16
|
Thannk you.
Cheers Greg.
The search goes on. |
19 April 2015, 12:38 AM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 16
|
5513 - Help please?
Does this 1963 5513 look correct? My gut decision is yes, but I need expert advice? Thank you :) |
19 April 2015, 01:30 AM | #5 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: michael
Location: Florida
Watch: explorer II cream
Posts: 1,664
|
63 should be gilt dial.
|
19 April 2015, 09:06 PM | #6 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Real Name: Greg
Location: michigan
Watch: Rolex Oyster
Posts: 4,046
|
watchcrank is right, a 63 would be Gilt dialed, but this one isn't a 63 as it doesn't have pointed crown guards. what are the first 4 digits of the SN? should date from like 66-69 i'd imagine.
|
20 April 2015, 12:02 AM | #7 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Aaron
Location: CT/NYC
Watch: ing the time!
Posts: 7,003
|
I actually love the look of this watch. Yes, the dial and hands were changed at service at some point, but that patina and bezel insert are beautiful. Nothing wrong with correctly replaced Rolex parts, as long as the price reflects that, of course. Good luck in your search.
|
20 April 2015, 07:00 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 2,133
|
Might be the pics bit the lume looks glued on the dial to say so.
|
21 April 2015, 02:29 PM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Real Name: George
Location: Sydney
Watch: 5513
Posts: 1,104
|
|
21 April 2015, 03:47 PM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Real Name: "A"
Location: Bangkok
Watch: 5512/5513
Posts: 176
|
WRONG dial for sure!!!
|
21 April 2015, 11:21 PM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 16
|
|
21 April 2015, 11:49 PM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Real Name: Ky
Location: Bay Area, CA
Watch: 16570
Posts: 2,362
|
Dial on the first watch does look strange. It's a MK5 which dates it to the early 80's. And aside from the strange shadows that others have noted, some of the hour plots actually touch the hash marks, which occurs only with the MK3 dial. Printing on the crown looks strange too. If i had to guess I'd say the dial has been redone.
|
22 April 2015, 01:36 AM | #13 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,268
|
|
22 April 2015, 02:47 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Real Name: JC
Location: Earth
Watch: 1680 ~ 16610LV
Posts: 811
|
Where are you getting these dates from?
The serial number? The date stamp on the caseback? The seller? The Serial number must match the caseback stamp which must match the dial.... The insert, hands, crown is nice to have matching but not necessary to make the watch "Correct"
__________________
************************ ************************ |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.