Correct bezel insert for 1968 5513??

[hogansgoat]

Hi guys, I've lurked here for a while and have been very impressed with the knowledge that you have and your willingness to share. So thanks for all that I've learned up to this point!

One thing that I haven't been able to figure out is what variation was the original bezel insert for a 1968 5513. I'm considering replacing one but am unsure which variation is the correct one, and I don't know what a fair price is for one. All those fats, and marks, and longs, etc. have me somewhat confused. Can someone clear this up for me?

HG

[stmoore]

A mk2 and I'd say a non long 5.

[hogansgoat]

Thanks, Steve!

[omitohud]

For 68 a kissing 4 or long 5 would b appropriate. But if u can't find them at reasonable price, they r very expensive, I would b content with a very fat mark 3 like the 3rd one in the first pic.





I blame it on the autoconnect.

[hogansgoat]

Thanks, Sam. It looks like folks are asking around $2k for the bezels on the auction site. Hopefully that's just the fishing price and not what they actually go for.

[stmoore]

I just went back and checked some photos (traveling).

As a rough comparison, my 1.55 mil (67ish) _is_ a long 5. I can not prove, but I believe it to be original to the watch.

[Beaumont Miller II]

Mk2 insert on my birth year 5513 from 1966.

[linesiders]

Long 5 will be most appropriate but MK1/MK3 (much the same but different ;) )

Keep your eye out - they do come across for under 500 if you are patient

[studioal]

Aside from which version is period-correct, can any of you weigh in on what these older inserts were painted with that results in them going matte and fading the way they do?

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by stmoore

A mk2 and I'd say a non long 5.

Originally Posted by omitohud

For 68 a kissing 4 or long 5 would b appropriate. But if u can't find them at reasonable price, they r very expensive, I would b content with a very fat mark 3 like the 3rd one in the first pic.





I blame it on the autoconnect.

Just out of curiosity. How do you guys find this information?
I am trying to hunt a nice faded insert myself on my 1680 white MK 2 circa 1979.
How can you be certain which insert is the period correct for a model in specific?

[Suboc]

These threads have some good info. Both from "VRF Classic Posts" The first link is two pages long. Insert chronology is a bit confusing in that there is variation within each "Mark" and some start classifying with the "red triangle" others do not. There is no universal chart that I'm aware of that everyone references.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...ase+comment%21

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...ge/1248700382/

[Frogman4me]

Mkii

[Suboc]

Originally Posted by studioal

Aside from which version is period-correct, can any of you weigh in on what these older inserts were painted with that results in them going matte and fading the way they do?

I believe anodized aluminum.

[Michael M.]

My 1967 (all original) has a MK2 Long 5 insert.

[hogansgoat]

Thanks guys for all the replies!

[omitohud]

Originally Posted by crazypilot

Just out of curiosity. How do you guys find this information?

I am trying to hunt a nice faded insert myself on my 1680 white MK 2 circa 1979.

How can you be certain which insert is the period correct for a model in specific?

From collectors/sellers who had come across many original untouched specimens and advertising pictures.

For 79 mark 3 FF would b fine especially the ones with soft rounded 4 or non serif. The 1st three on the pic.




I blame it on the autoconnect.

[Perpetual74]

Ser. 1.6 long5 http://i.imgur.com/wl0h5LP.jpg