Your opinions on this 1680 Red Submariner please.

[Storky]

I've been thinking about this Red sub. The dial is absolutely lovely and because I've looked at it for so long it looks too good to be correct .... perhaps, as we say in the UK 'I can't see the wood for the trees'!
To me a superb Mark IV dial. I've tried to look at every detail even the right hand side of the Superlative 'A' seems to have a slight curve, the same as photos I've seen.
I realise it has service hands but a nice fat font insert that I think is original.
Serial 33***** but the punched papers(!) are dated 1977 which seems to be about 4-5 years different?

Your opinions would be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

[southtexas]

Any more pics of watch, and pics of papers?

Dial at first glance looks good...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robbyvm]

Those hands would bother me every time i look at it Storky ( been there...)

[Storky]

Originally Posted by southtexas

Any more pics of watch, and pics of papers?

Dial at first glance looks good...

Unfortunately that's the only photo I have been able to take at this stage.
I'm 100% sure the punched paper is correct, but it concerned me that it is more than a couple of years out. The serial engraving between the lugs looks fine. I didn't mention the case which is good & strong, it has been polished and has had some wear. The watch was serviced by RSC in 1990 which I presume accounts for the hands. It has the original 9513 bracelet with 380 ends too. That's seen a bit of life but ok.

Thanks.

[Loevhagen]

Quick initial thoughts after looking at the picture a couple of mins:

- Dial looks perfect
- Used (almost) matching hands can be sourced at a later stage I guess
- Is the lowest CG polished much thinner than the other? I see the light here can play a trick - but check it.
- Is the cyclops skewed some degrees counterclockwise?

[Storky]

Originally Posted by Robbyvm

Those hands would bother me every time i look at it Storky ( been there...)

I know, I guess that's something that could be dealt with later (hassle though!) but with papers, tag, original box / outer green stripe box, I guess it ticks most of the boxes. It's the dial that I liked so much I convinced myself there was something wrong with it....?

[Storky]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

Quick initial thoughts after looking at the picture a couple of mins:

- Dial looks perfect
- Used (almost) matching hands can be sourced at a later stage I guess
- Is the lowest CG polished much thinner than the other? I see the light here can play a trick - but check it.
- Is the cyclops skewed some degrees counterclockwise?

Hi Bjoern!

I didn't notice the crown guard, I would check that before I pulled the trigger or pulled my debit card out!

Yes the cyclops is on the wonk I didn't notice that either (and I zoomed in on the photo before I cropped it)... get that straightened after I source the hands!

[redfred]

Lovely dial, cyclops skewered, lower CG bit thinner which is very common, there was a thread on here about it, wouldnt worry.

[Vincent65]

The MKIV dial looks great. Agree with observations above already re CGs and cyclops alignment - not a big deal.

3.3 mil would be about 1972, so the papers thing is slightly weird, but then it's had an RSC service...

Here's a rotated shot of mine for reference/comparison: (MKIV 2.63 1/1970)

[Loevhagen]

Here is a static morph where I have taken your picture Storky and put my Red on a transparent layer in order to see if the dial matches - and it is a pretty good match I would say. :)

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

Here is a static morph where I have taken your picture Storky and put my Red on a transparent layer in order to see if the dial matches - and it is a pretty good match I would say. :)

how about a threesome with mine, then?!

[Loevhagen]

Are sandwiches even legal on this forum.

[Storky]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

Here is a static morph where I have taken your picture Storky and put my Red on a transparent layer in order to see if the dial matches - and it is a pretty good match I would say. :)

That is a good match .... my confidence restored. Many thanks.
You certainly are 'Mr Photo'

Is that what they call a Double Red?!

[Loevhagen]

Double Red it is - but hey - if we add Vincent into the mix - we'll all have a "Sandwich Dial Triple Red" Submariner.

We can sell that for quite some money.

[Storky]

The crown is a Triplock (with 3 dots - 703?) ... does anyone know if the watch circa 1972 would have been factory fitted with a Twinlock (700?)?
I have read about this before and there seems to be conflicting reports about when the Triplock was fitted as standard ... then I've seen something about different Triplock crowns.

(My other half has described this vintage watch hobby as 'trainspotting' with lots of cash involved - bless her!) She just smiles sweetly whilst my typing skills improve....

[Loevhagen]

On the VRF, there was a thread with pictures showing 3 crowns and 2 were trip lock.

a) First Triplock introduced early 70s and had NO gasket
b) Second Triplock introduced late 70s and had a gasket

Screw out the crown and see if you have a gasket. I guess your's should not have the gasket.

Edit: Here it is: http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...wn+on+Red+sub-

[SubKing]

I really like the watch, looks good. has some character but that is all part of the charm of vintage. If the hands bother you; you could always have them relumed to match the dial. I think ABC does it and have seen some amazing results. That way, the hands won't bother you as much and you can take your time looking for a set of matching tritium hands. While ABC has the watch to correct the hands, they could also cut some chamfers back on the case and your CG's as well. Just some food for thought.

[Storky]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

On the VRF, there was a thread with pictures showing 3 crowns and 2 were trip lock.

a) First Triplock introduced early 70s and had NO gasket
b) Second Triplock introduced late 70s and had a gasket

Screw out the crown and see if you have a gasket. I guess your's should not have the gasket.

Edit: Here it is: http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...wn+on+Red+sub-

Thanks for the link!

[francis]

I love the watch. The issue with the Cyclops is not an issue apparently. I have had one worse than that and when I took it back to have corrected the Rolex repairman told me that it was well within specs.... I had him fix it nonetheless :)