ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

alexhay · 22 October 2010, 05:50 AM

I'm looking at a beautiful 1982 Explorer 2. My only concern is that it comes with a standard bracelet and not a "flip lock." Am i wrong? i thought all the Explorer 2's came with the "flip lock" bracelet and that the GMT's had the standard clasp.

Please advise.

Gladius · 22 October 2010, 05:57 AM

Where is this watch located? I hope not on eBay. :)

alexhay · 22 October 2010, 06:06 AM

No, a dealer in Atlanta.

marke · 22 October 2010, 06:36 AM

Could be a 78360 bracelet

mike · 22 October 2010, 07:46 AM

Either is correct for the reference depending on endlinks,

93 Turbo · 22 October 2010, 08:02 AM

I am just about to meet a colleague who has owned a 1655 since new, bought in 1979. His watch has the oyster bracelet with no flip lock. The watch has had regular servicing, though his bracelet is still original from initial purchase. Cheers J

rmfnla · 22 October 2010, 08:07 AM

Yeah, I had one like that way back when.

It's cool.

fusionstorm · 22 October 2010, 08:17 AM

I've never seen a 1655 with a fliplock. You should consider the 78360 the defacto standard for an 8.0M or high 7.0M serial 1655. Even if the 93150 were an orderable option for the 1655 then, most any collector considering a vintage purchase would feel more comfortable with a 1655 that was sporting the 78360.

22 October 2010, 05:50 AM	#1
alexhay Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: california Posts: 53	1982 "mcQueen" Explorer 2 I'm looking at a beautiful 1982 Explorer 2. My only concern is that it comes with a standard bracelet and not a "flip lock." Am i wrong? i thought all the Explorer 2's came with the "flip lock" bracelet and that the GMT's had the standard clasp. Please advise.

22 October 2010, 08:17 AM	#8
fusionstorm "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Piedmont, CA Watch: various vintage Posts: 2,272	I've never seen a 1655 with a fliplock. You should consider the 78360 the defacto standard for an 8.0M or high 7.0M serial 1655. Even if the 93150 were an orderable option for the 1655 then, most any collector considering a vintage purchase would feel more comfortable with a 1655 that was sporting the 78360. __________________ 1680 MK II 2.2M (my daily); 1655 MK IV 8.1M (my 1st vintage); 16660 x 4 - 8.0M spider & matte 7.4M, 8.0M, 8.0M; 16610LV F MK I/MK I; 116528 Z; 14060 M COSC; Tudor 75090 Gone.....never forgotten: 14000 F, 14060 V COSC, PAM 048, 16623 F, 1680 MK V 3.1M, 16800 matte 8.3M & 1655 MK IV 7.4M

22 October 2010, 05:57 AM	#2
Gladius Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Indiana Watch: Submariner Posts: 50	Where is this watch located? I hope not on eBay. :)

22 October 2010, 06:06 AM	#3
alexhay Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: california Posts: 53	No, a dealer in Atlanta.

22 October 2010, 06:36 AM	#4
marke Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Mark Location: UK Nationwide... Watch: Daytona Posts: 1,842	Could be a 78360 bracelet

22 October 2010, 07:46 AM	#5
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	Either is correct for the reference depending on endlinks,

22 October 2010, 08:02 AM	#6
93 Turbo 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Australia Watch: Rolex.Tudor.PAM Posts: 1,554	I am just about to meet a colleague who has owned a 1655 since new, bought in 1979. His watch has the oyster bracelet with no flip lock. The watch has had regular servicing, though his bracelet is still original from initial purchase. Cheers J

22 October 2010, 08:07 AM	#7
rmfnla "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: Richard Location: Los Angeles, CA Watch: TT DJ Posts: 4,456	Yeah, I had one like that way back when. It's cool.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)