1956 suspect dial?

[bgp123]

Hi guys. Another guy from downunder here ~ from the land of JJ Irani :)

I'd appreciate your advice on a watch I bought online.

It's was advertised as a 1956 Rolex, and having read the posts within this forum, I suspect the dial might not be original to the watch. I've included composite photos from the original online ad below:

http://www.geocities.com/ssoollaatt/rolex.jpg

The watch was advertised as a clip-on dial (without feet) and apart from the obvious 'Oyster Date' name absent from below the ROLEX signature, looks to me reasonably authentic. The hands could be another matter. I was told the owner worked for Rolex as some time, so was thinking the dial was possibly a spare part from a Perpetual, so the model markings were removed.

I'm not too concerned that the dial has been replaced because I love it. I have several other watches that are way too big for my wrist, and this one fits beautifully. I'm even looking to buy another 50-70s which hasn't been mucked around with.

Cheers and thanks.

[Wolfgang427]

Welcome. Tough to tell from your pics but dial appears original(though repainted) and hands appear original also. Nice watch, enjoy it.

[Tools]

The dial shown says T Swiss T, which denotes a Tritium dial... Rolex used Radium until 1960, so if your serial dates the watch to 1956, then I would suspect that the dial was replaced some time later..

[pwrslider]

Originally Posted by Tools

The dial shown says T Swiss T, which denotes a Tritium dial... Rolex used Radium until 1960, so if your serial dates the watch to 1956, then I would suspect that the dial was replaced some time later..

Great observation!!

[bgp123]

Thanks for your feedback guys.

The T Swiss T is a definite clincher! Weird thing though - it doesn't have any tritium markings on the dial.

Wolfgang: You're probably right. Could be the dial's been touched up - even if it's dated from the 60s, it's not discoloured in any way.

I still love it, and the pics don't do it justice. I've never owned a wind-up, so I'm trying to get in the habit of winding it up every morning

[jac67]

It all depends on what you are looking for, and price.

The fact that it has a "clip-on" dial, would be a deal breaker for me.

However, if it was priced at $500, I'd probably buy it.


John.

[bgp123]

Are you saying the clip-on dial isn't doesn't correspond with the age of the watch?

This is what the seller said in the original ad:


...it is the original dail as this dail fitting is special to this model of watch as it is a clip on dail,(no dail feet) may have been re-finished at some time in it's life...



I paid about $1250Aus. Oh well, a fool and his money...

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Welcome to TRF!

The watch could also be later than 1956. It depends on the serial number. On the pics it says "208XXX".

It does seem to have 6 numbers in total, but can't tell from the pic since it might be cut off to the right. If there are 7 numbers in total, it would be from 1969, making the TR dial correct. There are also pics of similar 6694's stated to be from the 1960ies in Kesaharu Imai's book "2421 Rolex Uhren".

At any standards, the price seems good, as John stated.

[bgp123]

Cheers for the welcome.

There are definitely 6 numbers on the original image (I placed the 'X'es myself) and the number '6494' on the other side.

I like it as it is, but might think about trying to find a '56 dial for it.
I suspect there wouldn't be too many of those around.

[mickeydainish]

Good lookin vintage I must say.... good on ya! :-)

[bgp123]

Ta mate!