Need help on 1655

[AntonyFu]

Hi all,

Happy New Year. I plan to buy a 1655 and would like to seek your advise of the dial, bezel and serial no are match at that period. Is it MK 4? The seller told me the case were unpolished, what do you think?

The serial no is 625xxxx


Appreciate for your help and comments. Many Thanks

[Dan S]

I'm just learning about these myself, but IMO it is a Mk4 dial and a Mk3 bezel, which is a plausibly correct combination for that serial. The case looks very good, I won't comment on "unpolished" claims. The only negative in my view is the moldy lume, which is not so appealing to me, but it looks like an honest piece.

[athom]

awful dial

[JD305]

maybe this can help?

[Juhuatai]

Terrible dial, I would pass.

[mbc]

Bezel does not look genuine to me. i always look at the stem of the 4 to start, wrong proportion. Overall very/shallow carvings for the numbers

[mbc]

Other bezel issues -- look at the slope of the "2"s, look at the top of the "1"s, look at the "24" and the the horizontal line in the 4 intersects with the 2. I don't think you'll find that relationship on any genuine bezel.

Characteristics of the bezel in the OP's post show up across various genuine bezels, but not all in one genuine bezel

[mbc]

Well this has taken me down a rabbit hole... I've spent some time on HQMilton searching for "1979 1655" and this bezel does appear several times (in 1980 as well).

Not sure what to make of it, but I don't think it's an MK3 and certainly not an MK4. An MK3.5?

[AntonyFu]

Thanks for your comments. Except the bezel, do you thank the dial and case are genius?

[AntonyFu]

More photos for your reference and thanks for your comments

[TurboWatch]

1. Don't be fooled by the term "unpolished". The watch has seen the polishing wheels several times, I can assure you.
2. While the dial is genuine MK4, I would avoid it because of the dark spots on the plots.
3. The bezel is a correct MK3 (thin font and oval 0). ( My apology, it is a MK 3 thin font, I should have proof read before hitting the submit button)

[mbc]

I still do not think it's an Mk4 bezel -- look at the all the of "1"s -- usually the top of the 1 is and angled line -- not a stub.

[AntonyFu]

Thanks for your comments. For your comments about MK4 bezel, I found the watch with 1 without the hook. Could you educate me in more details? Thanks

[mbc]

Look at the picture of an MK4 bezel in post #4 of this thread -- look at the bezel with labeled 4. On that bezel, look at the 1 in the circled "10", now compare to the watch you're looking at.

To my eye, there are other differences as well. BUT, I've found several examples on line with the bezel in the watch you're considering, so I am not saying it's not genuine, my view is just that it's not a MK3 or an MK4....

[TurboWatch]

Originally Posted by AntonyFu

Thanks for your comments. For your comments about MK4 bezel, I found the watch with 1 without the hook. Could you educate me in more details? Thanks

It's a MK3 thin font. I mis-typed and have corrected my original post. The
8 (lower portion) of the service bezel is rounded, whereas on the MK 4 and MK 3, it is oval.

[AntonyFu]

Thanks for your comments and no problem of the typo. So you believe the bezel is a Rolex service bezel?

[bayerische]

The brown discoloration of the dial lume would be a deal-breaker for me. Pitty as it otherwise looks nice.

[AntonyFu]

@TurboWatch: Appreciate if you can provide more info about the MK3 thin font bezel? Thanks.

I just find my old Japanese Rolex book on 1992 also have this kind of bezel. Very interesting

[swish77]

Bezel looks like an MK3, but with thinner font, as noted above. Not every single bezel from a particular style (MK1, MK2, MK3 etc ...) has exactly the precise same look. The font can be a little thicker/thinner, which was probably the result of when the enamel was applied in the run of that bezel style. I ran into a similar issue when obsessively researching my 1655, which has an MK2 bezel with font not quite as thick as other MK2 bezels I've seen. Remember, it was the 1970s/early '80s, and I'm not sure we should apply the modern mentality of precision/perfection/uniformity on every single part on every watch.

However, on this particular 1655 I think the bezel is besides the point: That tritium on the dial is a mess and not attractive. That's where the discussion would start and quickly end for me. Also, the case has definitely been polished, which wouldn't be a big deal on its own, except that the seller is claiming it hasn't been polished. Red flag. Just look at the crown guards, and how close the lug holes are to the edge of the case. For comparison, here's a side view of the case on my 1655 (5.4 mil.), which also has been polished but is still thick.

[JD305]

dark stains on lume plots would indicate some intrusion of humidity? ... maybe through the crown tube, where service was not done for a while, the o-rings may have been compromised

or, intrusion through caseback? It would be a good idea to see the caseback off and see how the movement looks, whether it is stained as well?

[El prosa]

Hi, I don't like the dial. But the bezel is a correct Mk3 "bis" in my opinion. I hope this can help you (my hypothetical bezels cataloging).

[mineral]

Originally Posted by swish77

Bezel looks like an MK3, but with thinner font, as noted above. Not every single bezel from a particular style (MK1, MK2, MK3 etc ...) has exactly the precise same look. The font can be a little thicker/thinner, which was probably the result of when the enamel was applied in the run of that bezel style. I ran into a similar issue when obsessively researching my 1655, which has an MK2 bezel with font not quite as thick as other MK2 bezels I've seen. Remember, it was the 1970s/early '80s, and I'm not sure we should apply the modern mentality of precision/perfection/uniformity on every single part on every watch.

However, on this particular 1655 I think the bezel is besides the point: That tritium on the dial is a mess and not attractive. That's where the discussion would start and quickly end for me. Also, the case has definitely been polished, which wouldn't be a big deal on its own, except that the seller is claiming it hasn't been polished. Red flag. Just look at the crown guards, and how close the lug holes are to the edge of the case. For comparison, here's a side view of the case on my 1655 (5.4 mil.), which also has been polished but is still thick.

Good looking 1655 with the fat case. The lug hole is so crisp too. Thanks for sharing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AntonyFu]

Originally Posted by El prosa

Hi, I don't like the dial. But the bezel is a correct Mk3 "bis" in my opinion. I hope this can help you (my hypothetical bezels cataloging).

Thanks for your comments. Your watch looks great

[AntonyFu]

Originally Posted by El prosa

Hi, I don't like the dial. But the bezel is a correct Mk3 "bis" in my opinion. I hope this can help you (my hypothetical bezels cataloging).

Thanks for your catalog. Could you advise what the meaning of bis? Thanks

[El prosa]

Originally Posted by swish77

Bezel looks like an MK3, but with thinner font, as noted above. Not every single bezel from a particular style (MK1, MK2, MK3 etc ...) has exactly the precise same look. The font can be a little thicker/thinner, which was probably the result of when the enamel was applied in the run of that bezel style. I ran into a similar issue when obsessively researching my 1655, which has an MK2 bezel with font not quite as thick as other MK2 bezels I've seen. Remember, it was the 1970s/early '80s, and I'm not sure we should apply the modern mentality of precision/perfection/uniformity on every single part on every watch.

HI, I'm in the same loop! Don't you think that there is a bezel with same mk 2's font but thinner? Do you think is only like a human "mistake"? I'd like to know what you think cause I can see this only between mk 2 and mk 3 bezels (mk 1 is always fat...).
Thanks a lot.

[El prosa]

Originally Posted by AntonyFu

Thanks for your catalog. Could you advise what the meaning of bis? Thanks

That one is mk 3 bezel. But I think there is an mk 3 before that one. But look, is my personal opinion, I'm searching some good examples, maybe I'm wrong.
Anyway, your bezel is correct and it's an mk 3 or at least mk 3 bis (means like second type if there is another mark before). My graphic example is ONLY what I'm studying right now: it's not official!
Thanks.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by El prosa

HI, I'm in the same loop! Don't you think that there is a bezel with same mk 2's font but thinner? Do you think is only like a huma n "mistake"? I'd like to know what you think cause I can see this only between mk 2 and mk 3 bezels (mk 1 is always fat...).
Thanks a lot.

Yes, there are some variations on the actual font thickness from style to style of the 1655 bezels. It's not a "mistake," though, just a natural manufacturing occurrence.

Things were made differently way back then, and it's only because watch nuts (myself included) are looking at slight variations in bezel font under a microscope that it's become an issue. No one cared 40 years ago.

[mbc]

Really great discussion here and I’ve learned something about the ‘transitional mk3’ or ‘mk3 bis’ (or as I called it ‘mk3.5’).

This is why I enjoy the forum...

Here’s a pic of my 1655 - no question on bezel (mk1) but with an mk2 dial which is a combo you don’t see that often....these watches can be puzzles...cheers




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El prosa]

Originally Posted by swish77

Yes, there are some variations on the actual font thickness from style to style of the 1655 bezels. It's not a "mistake," though, just a natural manufacturing occurrence.

Things were made differently way back then, and it's only because watch nuts (myself included) are looking at slight variations in bezel font under a microscope that it's become an issue. No one cared 40 years ago.

Yes, not really a mistake. Forgive my poor English... What about the fact this font difference doesn't appear in the mk 1 bezels? Did I just notice it or do you think it depends on the fact that the bezel has been in production for a much shorter period? Thank you.

[El prosa]

Originally Posted by mbc

Really great discussion here and I’ve learned something about the ‘transitional mk3’ or ‘mk3 bis’ (or as I called it ‘mk3.5’).

This is why I enjoy the forum...

Here’s a pic of my 1655 - no question on bezel (mk1) but with an mk2 dial which is a combo you don’t see that often....these watches can be puzzles...cheers




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice one! :)