ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

stvn · 18 April 2015, 07:18 PM

Hi Guys,
Can someone please confirm if this dial and ring is original to a 1968 5513 submariner?
Should 'Submariner' come below the numbers and not above?

Thank you very much.

andromeda160 · 18 April 2015, 09:04 PM

Dial is a later one, I believe it's a Maxi dial from the late 70's

stvn · 19 April 2015, 12:30 AM

Cheers Greg.
The search goes on.

stvn · 19 April 2015, 12:38 AM

Does this 1963 5513 look correct?
My gut decision is yes, but I need expert advice?
Thank you :)

watchcrank · 19 April 2015, 01:30 AM

63 should be gilt dial.

andromeda160 · 19 April 2015, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stvn

Does this 1963 5513 look correct?
My gut decision is yes, but I need expert advice?
Thank you :)

watchcrank is right, a 63 would be Gilt dialed, but this one isn't a 63 as it doesn't have pointed crown guards. what are the first 4 digits of the SN? should date from like 66-69 i'd imagine.

swish77 · 20 April 2015, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stvn

Hi Guys,
Can someone please confirm if this dial and ring is original to a 1968 5513 submariner?
Should 'Submariner' come below the numbers and not above?

Thank you very much.

I actually love the look of this watch. Yes, the dial and hands were changed at service at some point, but that patina and bezel insert are beautiful. Nothing wrong with correctly replaced Rolex parts, as long as the price reflects that, of course. Good luck in your search.

Mark020 · 20 April 2015, 07:00 AM

Might be the pics bit the lume looks glued on the dial to say so.

The_Walrus · 21 April 2015, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark020

Might be the pics bit the lume looks glued on the dial to say so.

Well spotted Mark.
The lume seems to cast a shadow

Jiggo · 21 April 2015, 03:47 PM

WRONG dial for sure!!!

stvn · 21 April 2015, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark020

Might be the pics bit the lume looks glued on the dial to say so.

I never noticed this but you are right!

jdmi32 · 21 April 2015, 11:49 PM

Dial on the first watch does look strange. It's a MK5 which dates it to the early 80's. And aside from the strange shadows that others have noted, some of the hour plots actually touch the hash marks, which occurs only with the MK3 dial. Printing on the crown looks strange too. If i had to guess I'd say the dial has been redone.

Frogman4me · 22 April 2015, 01:36 AM

Check out our very own John's site. Extremely helpful

http://www.5513mattedial.com/

Wing Zero · 22 April 2015, 02:47 AM

Where are you getting these dates from?

The serial number?
The date stamp on the caseback?
The seller?

The Serial number must match the caseback stamp which must match the dial....
The insert, hands, crown is nice to have matching but not necessary to make the watch "Correct"

18 April 2015, 07:18 PM	#1
stvn "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: UK Posts: 16	Is this dial original? Thank you Hi Guys, Can someone please confirm if this dial and ring is original to a 1968 5513 submariner? Should 'Submariner' come below the numbers and not above? Thank you very much.

19 April 2015, 12:30 AM	#3
stvn "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: UK Posts: 16	Thannk you. Cheers Greg. The search goes on.

19 April 2015, 12:38 AM	#4
stvn "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: UK Posts: 16	5513 - Help please? Does this 1963 5513 look correct? My gut decision is yes, but I need expert advice? Thank you :)

22 April 2015, 02:47 AM	#14
Wing Zero "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Real Name: JC Location: Earth Watch: 1680 ~ 16610LV Posts: 811	Where are you getting these dates from? The serial number? The date stamp on the caseback? The seller? The Serial number must match the caseback stamp which must match the dial.... The insert, hands, crown is nice to have matching but not necessary to make the watch "Correct" __________________ ********************** **********************

18 April 2015, 09:04 PM	#2
andromeda160 Banned Join Date: Dec 2012 Real Name: Greg Location: michigan Watch: Rolex Oyster Posts: 4,046	Dial is a later one, I believe it's a Maxi dial from the late 70's

19 April 2015, 01:30 AM	#5
watchcrank "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: michael Location: Florida Watch: explorer II cream Posts: 1,664	63 should be gilt dial.

20 April 2015, 07:00 AM	#8
Mark020 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 2,133	Might be the pics bit the lume looks glued on the dial to say so.

21 April 2015, 03:47 PM	#10
Jiggo "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Real Name: "A" Location: Bangkok Watch: 5512/5513 Posts: 176	WRONG dial for sure!!!

21 April 2015, 11:49 PM	#12
jdmi32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Real Name: Ky Location: Bay Area, CA Watch: 16570 Posts: 2,362	Dial on the first watch does look strange. It's a MK5 which dates it to the early 80's. And aside from the strange shadows that others have noted, some of the hour plots actually touch the hash marks, which occurs only with the MK3 dial. Printing on the crown looks strange too. If i had to guess I'd say the dial has been redone.

22 April 2015, 01:36 AM	#13
Frogman4me Banned Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Maryland Posts: 6,268	Check out our very own John's site. Extremely helpful http://www.5513mattedial.com/

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