Correct insert for my 5513 Submariner

[florian1979]

Hello,

I have a Submariner (serial number 1,99...). Is within this serial range only a mk 2 insert correct, or could I also use a mk 3 insert?

Thank you

Florian

[athom]

Originally Posted by florian1979

Hello,

I have a Submariner (serial number 1,99...). Is within this serial range only a mk 2 insert correct, or could I also use a mk 3 insert?

Thank you

Florian

I'd say both, "fat font" and "long 5".

[Racer X]

After spending some time looking into it, it seems to me that the mk2 to mk3 transition occurred somewhere around 1968-9, which is the time period for a 1.9 million sn Rolex. So, I would say either would be valid. In view of that, I'd just go with the insert that you like the most. You're the one who's going to look at it the most and an insert you really like can almost make the watch.

While both the mk2 and mk3 are nice, I prefer the mk3, which looks fatter to me. Also, if you're looking to source an insert, the mk3's are more common and less expensive too.

[jlovda]

Originally Posted by athom

I'd say both, "fat font" and "long 5".

Pleas educate me. Are you saying the "fat font" insert is more formally known as Mk 2? And "long 5" is Mk 3? I believe my 5513, SN 204xxxx, has a fat font insert. (See avatar).

Thanks

[lupus66]

Mk 2 and 3 are both more or less fat
Only mk 2 is long 5
Best is a kissing4 long5.

[florian1979]

Thank you very much for your answers. I think I will go for a mk3. It seems they are easier to get in a good condition and they are even cheaper;).

[Tools]

Originally Posted by florian1979

Thank you very much for your answers. I think I will go for a mk3. It seems they are easier to get in a good condition and they are even cheaper;).

A new service insert is even cheaper yet.

There is no law or rule that says you need to run around and find an old insert that may/may not have been on your watch back-in-the-day. They are expendables.