Rolex Service Polish Or Not Re Gold Submariner?

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by patb

It looks to me like when you put it up for sale it will be sold as an X serial number. Unfortunately no amount of paperwork is going to change that fact.

It depends. If he sells it to someone who's simply interested in buying a gold Rolex, then X versus F (or whatever) isn't going to make a difference. If he sells to an informed enthusiast, then the update bracelet/clasp (if verified original) would increase value relative to a standard X watch.

[jackruff]

- If I'm correct X serial no. is second half of 1991 !!!!!

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by jackruff

- If I'm correct X serial no. is second half of 1991 !!!!!

Oh, you are 100% correct......

[LightOnAHill]

That's one sexy sub!

[kilyung]

Let the OP be. He can list his watch however he wants. It's not our place to police or judge his actions. The market will determine what happens to his sale. Regardless it's still a great looking gold sub! Let's just move on shall we?

[U5512]

OP,

I could have sold a brand new, unworn, unused with boxes/papers 18K Rolex Submariner with an "X" serial number today, and dated the warranty paper as February 10th, 2013. That doesn't mean the watch is 10 years old in 2023!!!

[sdwtchlvr]

Give the guy a break. I would say leave it unpolished, but if you're going to send it in to RSC for polishing, go for Bexley. They've got the proper lapping machine and can make your case sides/champfers the proper degree.

I saw an F serial Explorer II at my local Ben Bridge AD in Dec. 2011. No joke. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself. I started talking serial numbers with the sales folk and they looked at me like I was crazeeee. But I bet they sold it to a regular joe like 99.9% of the public who know nothing about serial number dating. It was brand new though with stickers and everything.

So, do I doubt that the original poster bought his watch new in 2002? Not really, he probably did. But the fact of the matter is that folks on this forum and others reference the standard (unofficial) serial dating chart which dates the OP's watch to the early 1990s. I'm sure its in great shape though. And if the condition dictates, it should be worth just about the same as a 2002 model. With gold watches, condition is king because it's so damn easy to over polish and muck up the case.

Leave it unpolished if you ask me. I'd take a 1992 unpolished example over a 2002 polished example most days, if not any day.

[sdwtchlvr]

And by the way, this is EXACTLY why Rolex is going to random serial numbers, but we all know that.

[RIPLEYXL9]

Anybody know how to edit an earlier thread in this post as it seemed to have timed out, so there is no Edit button - actually I want to replace 2 of the the images

[yld2rob]

If I was buying it I would not want it polished. Let the buyer make that decision.

[Vincent65]

no polish

[Vincent65]

Why d'you sell your old man's 1675 GMT?!

[mmmk604]

OP should read this, RE: serial numbers.
Hope this helps with the confusion.

http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/numbers.html

[Mystro]

If done correctly, there is no reason not to polish it. Looking good is a priority in a luxury watch isn't it??

[mjclark32]

If they're only light scratches I'd leave them till you're ready to sell. They're more than likely to keep coming back.

[RIPLEYXL9]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Why d'you sell your old man's 1675 GMT?!

I wanted to buy a gold and steel submariner, to use as a second every day watch
Plus I was a completely unedjucated about the RSC working practices and therefore assumed anything that old was probably just about to keel over and die; or require an immensely expensive service.
I didn't realise that when you put it in for the £445 full service - that includes a complete refurb externally, and brings the movement up to current as new specification. Hence they go on forever.

I just liked the Gold and steel - as its really pretty so having the 16618 and Dad's in the safe at the same time just seemed pointless . Final slam was the insurance company slipped a clause in the renewal meaning despite the safe being certified for £40K in cash without a Premium excess, they now wanted premiums on all the watches 'mine and the wifes' re the all risks element. So 2 each is enough
So when the nephew asked to buy it for what the dealers offered me for it - seemed perfect - stays in the family - by then I'd put it throught a major service at Rolex, So has a 2 year g'tee for him and looks perfect other than some bracelet wear but Rolex said it wouldn't break (something for him to save up for).

[petesjag]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Let the OP be. He can list his watch however he wants. It's not our place to police or judge his actions. The market will determine what happens to his sale. Regardless it's still a great looking gold sub! Let's just move on shall we?

Mike, your the man..Thanks for putting some perspective into the situation here...

[RIPLEYXL9]

Fathers sold! for Vincent65

[Welshwatchman]

Good to see the papers.

They suit a 1991 watch.

[RIPLEYXL9]

Originally Posted by CharlieSheen

What does an avatar about anything about any member? Just because my username is "CharlieSheen" doesn't mean I am bangin 7g rocks! :)

Many people on this site have a great assortment of pieces, as do you! I understand people are "hating" on you but no need for you to do the same, be bigger!

Yeah you are so right.
But hell this guy just picked on me and seemed to stalk me from post to post.
It also raises pretty interesting stock write off issues and advice for new Rolex owners [re your list of pieces, I'm sure you would be able to comprehend the true finacial ramifications I'm alluding to here] - well lets say Rolex are not ignoring me!

So then I like noticed he was sitting on the can in his avatar.
I just couldn't resist it. I know its wrong but...

It's just, it so reminded me of this road movie I once saw; where this girl stopped at a service station, it was like in the middle of knowwhere and she asked if she could use the loo.
When the attendant said "sorry we don't have one". She replied "how long is your shift"; and he replied ohh 8 to 9 hours.
So she retorted "Ahhh 8 hours and no John, umm I guess that explains how come you are so full of sh*t".

[interestng to see how long he takes to change his AVATAR]

[RIPLEYXL9]

OK being serious guys.
Thank you for all the valuable insight into what should I do.
With no offence meant to those who said let Rolex Polish it.

I took it to a Jewellers today, who's Master watch maker used to work at Rolex.
And he said if it's polished right with the right lapping machines [like the ones Rolex UK have] then the profile angles can be maintainedand definitely no harm can be done.

He also warned me he'd seen gold watches that had obviously been polished with stainless steel pads - and " massacred" them.

I appreciate my photos aren't great but in the flesh he said leave it alone as it looks in great condition for 11 years [ouch! here come the rednecks]. He also pointed out that the £455 full service in the UK could, absolutely without a shadow of a doubt, make this look like brand new in box. Plus he said that service really got the movement up to 100% perfection.

As he pointed out hell if they don't believe it, knock the £455 off the absolute top price and send it in to Rolex - as it then comes out with a 2 year G'tee.

So it stays unpolished!

I see his logic but the big thing is if I we are wrong it can always be polished by Rolex next week but if I polish it now it can never be unpolished!

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by RIPLEYXL9

Wow you are a real piece of work.
You ask for the G'tee, I post a picture of it but you still insist its 20 years old, as YOU CAN SEE The Guarrantee CLEARLY STATES 8TH March 2002 on the certificate. So 2013 less 2002 in my book makes it `11 years old.
In addition the Bracelet clasp is stamped DE2 which means it was made in Feb 2001. Rolex UK say when they tuned the movement in 2004 and confirmed it was a 2001 movement. It also has SEL [solid end links] I think you will find these were not fitted 20 years ago on Submariners!
Both Rolex Germany and Rolex UK [the people who make the watch afterall] say it is 2002 watch, which was manufactured in 2001.


Yet you stalk me from another thread to this one, persisting, that it is a 20 year old watch. And continue effectively to insinuate if I were to sell it as a 2002 model, I'd be misreprenting the watch. That 's like saying Im fraudulently selling a 1993 watch as if it was a 2002 model.
Facinating - so who in that scenario would be the fraudster the Dealer who sold it to me or me representing what the manufacter has told me is a fact!

In any event That's a pretty nasty and serious allogation, because there is a difference in values - please remember I only posted in the first place on this site, to get information so I could be 100% sure NOT to misrepresent the watch incorrectly. So give me a break, what more do you want me to have done.
,
I am surprised considering your permenant habitat [as per your Avatar - picture ] that you are still, so full of it. I especially don't even see you as a gold Submariner owner [nothing like first hand knowledge] - looks like you just picked a hate campaign.
In fact I am so annoyed by your inference [which I treat as a serious charachter slur] I will get my solicitor to write to Rolex UK and ask them to clear this up in writing. I am not sure if they will respond; as I've already discovered on the phone they do not like commenting on this subject. Actually their MD allegedly prohibited it except in exceptional circumstances. And before your tiny brain insuates its because it's "FISHY".
I suspect its because Rolex quite understandably do not like the public knowing about manufacturing dates. Ask any professionally trained accountant why? Its simple, as one can see there is a difference in value between watches of different ages [excluding the vintage collector's market which is a totally different scenario] Rolex's accountants could ask them to write down the value of stock older than 12months. Worlwide that would be an astronimic number, secondly buyers would stand in their AD's and look at a watch a year old and instantly knock off the appropriate sum. Then the A|D's would be forced to discount or not sell, yet again building up even older stock. Likewise a huge overnight loss. Then the AD's accountants would also definitely ask them to write down the value of older stocks. Thus leading to more stock valuation write downs.
Yep stock write downs come straight of bottom line profits. So you only have to have an IQ of about 85 to see why they REALLY don't like commenting on this at all - ever.

This is actually very bad for Rolex, all of it's distributors and all the owners including me, as the Submariner is not my only Rolex [and it will be replaced by a 116618].
Official disclosure of date-serial no codes would reduce second hand values; because we as owners wishing to sell a nearly new model could find ourselves competing against an AD selling a BNIB discounted model.

If you doubt my logic - ask yourself why did Rolex in 2010 introduce the secret algorithym based serial number system! To precisely allow them to continue this practice. And hey, I as an owner support them 100% - excellent idea.

If you havent grasped the logic or can't deduct 2002 from 2013 and get 11. Please let me know if I manage to get a letter from Rolex stating mine is a 2002 Rolex manufactures in 2001; will you still insist that I label it as a 20 year old watch ! And if so on what basis do you make that.

I still don't know why you insist on having a go, I actually think this would have been an informative thread especially for first time Rolex owners.
Or any owner about to make a purchase. NB I specifically put on my order that I wanted a "completely new watch"
Please see copies of the G'tee certificate Rolex say is its Birth Date Card and the fax in which I ordered the watch back in 2002.
Those not aquainted with the thread might ask themselves in light of the words confirmed on the order- if in fact I was sold a watch Manafactured in 1991 [X generaly denotes that date] is that ethical trading. Rolex Germany have insinuated that it is possible that the Blank Watch Body [the bit with the serial number] could have been cast/forged in 1991 and then utilized in the 2001 build.

I am sure my Druid friend KNAPPO 1307, will no doubt next try and insinuate the watch is 1993 [not sure where he gets that 20 years - probably ESN Mathematics]
and that I bought a new movement and a complete new solid gold bracelet in 2001; just so I could pretend it was a 2002 watch. Hmmm wonder how many people think you could do that for less that the difference in cost between a 2002 and 1993 Submariner. So far it could be a maximum £2000 differential. Just guessing but I rekon a solid gold Oyster bracelet would be what £5,000! and a complete movement £3,000+ plus fitting.

Hey, sorry buddy. Don't cry, I take it all back. I absolutely love your 20 year old watch. I'm certainly not stalking you. The avatar is from a great movie called" The Big Lewbowski", you should watch it sometime. Even people with 20 year old gold subs love it.....

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

Good to see the papers.

They suit a 1991 watch.

THIS........

[crowncollection]

"If you doubt my logic - ask yourself why did Rolex in 2010 introduce the secret algorithym based serial number system! To precisely allow them to continue this practice. And hey, I as an owner support them 100% - excellent idea."

only a matter of time until it's cracked, it just a code and the mathamaticians are working on it. There are valid reasons for both points of view here. If the watch was sold in 2001 it is new in every sense at that time, never worn and the movement does not have any miles on it so to speak, 2 year warranty it's new, but the case was stamped far before that, why it sat around for so long who knows. Your problem is that as you can see from general consensus of rolex owners here on this site alone your watch is 1991-3 to most, wether that is the way you see and rolex see it or not. I too would class your watch from 1991-3 on the resale market, regardless of the paperwork which is the older style by the way. I agree the watch may have been new when you got it and no model changes occurred so no biggie, but to those who will look to buy the watch at sale time it's a 1991-3. I think you got somewhat duped imho and i have empathy for you, i would have checked the serial on the papers at the time myself. Anyway enjoy the watch. just my two cents

[bondtoys]

Tbh, I don't understand the constant bashing on Ripleyxl9.

1. Ask yourself, what equipment you all had in 2002 and how often you have used the internet for research.

2. I can see often the "internet hype" remark regarding serial numbers and production date. It seems to be consense that these numbers give a rough indicator of when the case has been used, but don't give a clear indicator for the real age of a watch.
Additionally I think, that we can all agree that YG Submariners where not the hottest sellers back then - not for Rolex Germany and not for a particular jeweller.

3. It seems als to be consense that a watch is considered as being new at the moment when it's been sold by the AD and the certificate is dated and stamped.

4. The OP provided his certificate for the X-serial Sub dated March 2002, so to me, the watch is from March 2002 and I could care less what an internet database says.

[brettpaul]

No polishing for me....if you sell, let the buyer polish if he/she wishes.....just my 2c

[cht]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

That polished 10 year old watch would be a polished 20 year old watch in the not too distant future. I don't polish watches unless absolutely necessary.

For the people saying "I'd let Rolex polish it", that's no guarantee of a good job. They generally do a good job, but I've seen over polished watches come out RSC NY (and to a lesser extent Dallas). Any time a watch is polished you run the risk of getting burned.

I was being sarcastic in re: his other thread...

[RIPLEYXL9]

Originally Posted by RIPLEYXL9

Anybody know how to edit an earlier thread in this post as it seemed to have timed out, so there is no Edit button - actually I want to replace 2 of the the images

Many Thanks to Stephen the Moderator for removing the image with the Serial No.
But have down loaded the one with a partial serial number so anyone being dragged back to this thread can see the point re the Warrnaty Card

I would also be extremely interested in seeing, what these cards looked like in other 2002 watches, especially on solid Gold Submariners or solid gold GMT's [nb remeber to remove some od the serial no unlike clutz me].
Only asked as one guy kindly sent me photos of his but I think they were American.
Interested Particularly in German Ones. or French ones i.e. in French.

Trying to learn about this very important asked of proving provence as it effects values.

Quick update, Rolex UK have committed to providing me with a letter confirming my watch is a 2002 model and that was sent to Germany in late 2001. Obviously I'll await that with interest.
Just out of interest if one has a 1991 serial number on a late 2001 built watch, with confirmation from Rolexnat Director level; that it is a unique one off "2002" watch , with a 2001 bracelet, movement, case and papers BUT, with a serial number usually issued in 1991. Does that make it ultra valuable as an 'UBER' unique collectors item, with absolutely incontestable documentation of provenance! ;) ;) :)

[ChuckFinlay]

Originally Posted by RIPLEYXL9

It also has SEL [solid end links] I think you will find these were not fitted 20 years ago on Submariners!

I thought 18K Subs and YM had always had SEL, like this from 1978

http://www.chrono24.com/en/rolex/rol...-id2283450.htm

1985
http://www.chrono24.com/en/rolex/sub...Fref-16808.htm

[RIPLEYXL9]

Originally Posted by ChuckFinlay

I thought 18K Subs and YM had always had SEL, like this from 1978

http://www.chrono24.com/en/rolex/rol...-id2283450.htm

1985
http://www.chrono24.com/en/rolex/sub...Fref-16808.htm

Not being facitious; but is that based on your informed knowledge of the Submariner [contradicts what I was told by Rolex] or on this picture.

Its an interesting picture, however could you be sure those were with SELs [looks a bit like they are] Apart from its just that there is a pretty big gap between the outside of the alledged SELs and the inside of the casing lugs on both side.
I'm getting so cynical about the integrity of the whole industry. One starts to think, is it with SEL's or is it just the photo? Or was that Subs case so totally worn out they had to replace the whole bracelet and put on one with SELs and thats why there is such a large gap.
Or is the gap there becuase of overpolishing to hide the wear.

On mine its got that perfect snug fit which totally avoids bracelet wear-slap.

But then the second picture looks like no gap. I'd love to know for sure about SELs ie. the year they came in.
Mind you I'd say mine was better condition than both of these and younger in any event and the best I've been offerred is £10,000
So fed up with the whole thiing I'll trade it tomorrow. Then I'll go hunting for the ultimate peachy Randon Serial 116618. And just move on. Sure the German dealer will make amends.

And are you the real Chuck Finlay in "Burn Notice"? :) (I'm a real fan!)