Opinion on 5512 please

[equus580]

I received this gift watch from my brother, he knows I like vintage watches but I am not an expert like most of you here in the forum. The watch came with a NATO strap and i changed it to the bracelet shown in the picture (which is a 6636 marked 2/66). Can some of the experts here tell me about the dial and case and tell me what you see please. Dial looks redone but I am not sure about the rest.

[equus580]

More pics

[watchcrank]

What did he tell you about the watch? I see many things I do not like especially dial & hands. m

[equus580]

I don't have any background, he just saw it at a jewelry store where they sell used watches and he found it, not a vintage watch specialist by any means.

[Vincent65]

the case/crown-guards are bugging me a bit...

[CrownMe]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

the case/crown-guards are bugging me a bit...

but the dial isnt???

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by CrownMe

but the dial isnt???

that had already been covered

[equus580]

Thank you Mike and Vincent for your replies, I hope I can gets some more. Here some additional pics of cad/crown-guards.

[Beaumont Miller II]

Many inconsistencies with this one.
The lume is not period correct.
I have concerns about the dial.
I don't believe the case is original to the case.

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Many inconsistencies with this one.

I don't believe the case is original to the case.

[Beaumont Miller II]

Oops I don't think the dial is original to the case.

[mdw3]

That was a humorous slip of the keyboard, but indeed, I think even the case isn't original to the case! The whole shooting match is no good, I would guess. Probably the only thing authentic might be the movement (and maybe not even that).

Michael

[Im Lauf der Zeit]

Why is the "chronometer" text so much lighter. And does anyone else find the endlinks ill-fitting.

[equus580]

Thank you all for your replies, from the postings above I will try to summarize my conclusions, please amend if you can still spare some time:

a) The lume dots on the dial have been "at least redone" (when looked under a loupe you can see the white edge of the dots (peaking on the edge of some of the dots), that part I assumed from the start. But the big question: "is the dial rolex original or just redone?, the white edge on the dots I can see under the loupe gives me the hope that dial could be good (or do you all consider this an impossibility). Maybe someone can look at the writing on the dial and tell from this and not only from the dots? (I honestly can't).

b) The case may or may not be original, the case does have a serial 1.2 mm engraving (will post the pics tomorrow of the engraving, so please don't get bored of this thread) which supposedly would date it 66. And there is indeed a version of square crown guards made in this era (see picture below taken from Mondani book). But some of the experts here may be able to tell from the serial number engraving (I honestly can't).

As to the chronometer being lighter, look at the pic below from the book so this is the way it is supposed to be I guess..

I am not trying to convince myself of anything, this watch was a gift found, I just want to know what is it that I have on this watch real or not real!!

Have I missed anything?

Thanks to all in advance.

[Rags]

Take it to a watchmaker & have him open the back & check the movement. What about the model & serial number that should be stamped on the side of the case.

[Beaumont Miller II]

I enjoy this thread so don't worry about me getting bored.
Threads like this help me to learn more about the gilt dials from the early/mid '60's.

A couple things:
From the book you don't show a pic of a chapter ring dial in a case with round crown guards. The square crown guards are very rare and were seen prior to the pointed crown guards, around 477XXX serial range. Your watch has round crown guards.
The shape of the letter S in SUBMARINER is different in your dial versus the pic in the book...look closely.
The coronet and the serif on the L in ROLEX is different as well.
There is also a larger gap between the lines 2 and 3 on the text at the bottom of the dial than in the pic in the book and what is commonly seen.

Better pics of your watch would be helpful.

[007Sub]

Agreed with the skepticism above. The case bothers me. The crown guards look very wrong. Can't quite put my finger on why. Would love to see the serial numbers and case number to analyze the script...

[007Sub]

Also the hour hand looks a little large to me... Does this bother anyone else?

[equus580]

Thank you very much for your responses and analysis. I will post pictures of serial number, inside case, movement and better detailed pics tomorrow.

[equus580]

Here are some additional pics showing the engraving and back case, I also posted more of the dial, opinions welcome!!!

[Beaumont Miller II]

Thank you for the improved pics.

I will stand by my original statement that the case is not original to the case. Lol

Seriously I don't recognize that style coronet, combined with that style text font as being a correct gilt gloss udial from '60 to '62.

And as I stated before a connected minute track dial is not correct for a case with a 1.5 mil serial.

Even with the improved pics the lume does not appear period correct.

I find it interesting that when you compare the number "1" in the serial number between the lugs it is different than than number "1" in 5512 between the other set of lugs... A huge red flag.

Furthermore with a 1.5 serial the correct case back would likely be from '66, nowhere near '62.

[cajuntiger]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Furthermore with a 1.5 serial the correct case back would likely be from '66, nowhere near '62.

yes, but if you enter the serial number in one of those website serial number calculators you get 1962.
Frakenwatch building 101...dont use the calculator.

[Patrick C]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

I find it interesting that when you compare the number "1" in the serial number between the lugs it is different than than number "1" in 5512 between the other set of lugs... A huge red flag

Even the number "5" appears different

[CrownMe]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Thank you for the improved pics.

I will stand by my original statement that the case is not original to the case. Lol

Seriously I don't recognize that style coronet, combined with that style text font as being a correct gilt gloss udial from '60 to '62.

And as I stated before a connected minute track dial is not correct for a case with a 1.5 mil serial.

Even with the improved pics the lume does not appear period correct.

I find it interesting that when you compare the number "1" in the serial number between the lugs it is different than than number "1" in 5512 between the other set of lugs... A huge red flag.

Furthermore with a 1.5 serial the correct case back would likely be from '66, nowhere near '62.

great info John. while a franken at least it looks cool

[equus580]

Thanks for your replies!! I guess I will just have to wear the frankenwatch proudly when I see the gift giver! I have gone into there different websites, two of them have calculators (don't know if its proper to mention them here) and they give 1961-61 when I put the 1.5 serial, but when I go into the table 1.5 serial is 66-67. Is there any official "site" reference guide for the serial numbers?

[cajuntiger]

Originally Posted by equus580

Thanks for your replies!! I guess I will just have to wear the frankenwatch proudly when I see the gift giver! I have gone into there different websites, two of them have calculators (don't know if its proper to mention them here) and they give 1961-61 when I put the 1.5 serial, but when I go into the table 1.5 serial is 66-67. Is there any official "site" reference guide for the serial numbers?

well hopefully your Brother didn't pay what this would be worth if it was correct...assuming he didn't, it still looks great. Wear it and enjoy.

[Beaumont Miller II]

I don't know of an official site, but I can tell you that a 1.55 mil serial number would more than likely have a '66 case back. If you divide the 1.55 serial in half, that's about the range for a '62 case back.

[skprd13]

Even the 5's and I believe the 2's on the serial number and model number are different engravings.

[007Sub]

I'm not sure frankenwatch is even the correct term for this one unfortunately... I agree with Steve those case numbers are very dubious. There really appears to be very little on this watch that looks original... Though I must say it is scary how well done it is in certain respects...

[CrownMe]

The insert looks real to my eye. But I'm far from a expert on them