Late model 5513 - thoughts and value?

[mray2686]

Hey guys -
Been reading up and learning all I can about the world of vintage Rolex and I stumbled upon this example in my backyard.

From my research, this would be a '86-'87 age with the serial in the 9.3 mil. First off, is that even considered "vintage"?

I called the seller, and this is what I know.
- Original owner. Comes with all box, papers from date of purchase in 1987. Bought from AD back then in the mall a mile from my home.
- Has had two services done, by Rolex authorized jeweler. He says the mainspring and crystal have been replaced, that's it.
- Stated bezel, dial, hands all original. Bracelet original.

It's been sitting in it's box for the past four years after he retired.

I like the two line, really like that was probably produced in my birth year (1986)
Not sure of the value of these later year 5513's. I know the earlier versions with the beautiful patina and unpolished cases can fetch quite a penny, but I don't see those variants listed for sale often so I don't really know round about what they are worth.

This would be my first jump into the vintage world. Still debating over an earlier 5513 or a 1675/16750 GMT.

Here are the shots the seller took today. Based on my phone call, these are about the quality I expected. I just wanted to get a feel for the watch before I made plans to drive an hour to meet him. What are your thoughts?

[shane0mack]

Seems to be in good shape, despite the less than quality photos. Box and papers all there. My guess would be around $4,500.

[Vincent65]

Looks nice - if you like it and the asking price is right for you, go for it. In terms of the 'vintage' label, there are hundreds of threads and debates about what constitutes vintage.
I'd say this was on the edge and maybe just heading into vintage territory...

[MATCH1969]

I have one of late eighties, box and paper full set, below with my hulk and can tell you not so easy to find complete and in good shape.

[mray2686]

Thanks for your input guys. I think I'll check this one out in person and will take better pictures.

[high5]

don't buy it

[03cobraa]

Originally Posted by high5

don't buy it

Please explain why!

[Natboy]

Originally Posted by high5

don't buy it

Pointless comment. I would disregard this advise.

I personally like this period sub. Since they are the lowest priced 5513's, it's good bang for the buck too. $4500-$5000 for a full set seems right.

[Clay]

Is it vintage...Ask 10 people get 10 different answers...
But a very undervalued watch in my opinion...
I like them...

[lhanddds]

I prefer no metal surrounds on the hour plots but buy what you like. Also, never understood the birthyear watch thing.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

[high5]

don't buy it. the reason is white gold surround market fan base is a lot less. It is difficult to sell when you get tired of it. I pretty much can tell you when you see someone else wearing a 5513 without the white gold surround marker, you will want to sell it. It is somewhere in between old and new, so it is not as desirable. Having said all that, if you can get a good condition one with box and paper, it may still be worthwhile. As of now, it is not as desirable as the older version of this model. But things may change in the future, who knows. Just do your research about it before buying it, 5513 has a rich history. I personally have owned several of them over the years, the white gold surround one was the only one I lost money on.

[high5]

the older version dial is a matt dial (even older are the gilt dial). those are the ones people are after.

[GeoGio Greece]

Full set, one owner, no white gold, to help you make up your mind.

[stuffgeek]

I prefer the maxi dial too for my vintage unless it is a SD

[motoikkyu]

I guess I am in the minority again. I chose the white-gold surrounds when the time came: I thought they were a great innovation and charming. I really want a Tudor snowflake someday and one of the things that makes me hesitate is that I have gotten used to the neat, disciplined (maybe retentive) look of the surrounds on my GMT, my Explorer II, and my 5513.

[Kingair]

Originally Posted by motoikkyu

I guess I am in the minority again. I chose the white-gold surrounds when the time came: I thought they were a great innovation and charming. I really want a Tudor snowflake someday and one of the things that makes me hesitate is that I have gotten used to the neat, disciplined (maybe retentive) look of the surrounds on my GMT, my Explorer II, and my 5513.

It's not about being in the minority . . . but most of the members would go for a vintage one . . . .

If you really like the WG surroundings . . . I would go for a 16610 . . . hey . . . but that's just me . . ;-)

HAGWe

[mray2686]

I appreciate all the comments. My heart is telling me hold out for an older 5513- if I could grab one with a maxi dial that would be icing on the cake.

I do like this watch, but its not "the one" I've had my heart set on. And that's telling me enough.

For what's it's worth, listed at 5k, seller already OK with 4,400. I still would want an earlier model.

[michel33]

Glossy dial and WG surrounds under a plexi dome are gorgeous, nothing to do with a matte dial or a WG surrounds dial with a sapphire like a 14060.
It looks more like an early lacquered dial actually.

What I mean is that this watch has its own personality, I just love it, and it is underestimated God knows why..... It is less common than a matte painted dial and does not look at all like the 14060 sapphire Submariner because thanks to the plexi there is no reflection and that the domed plexi turns the markers into 3D plots, amazing.

Mine:

[G-Web]

To each his own, but I would hop on it.

The matte dial 5513's are beautiful, no doubt about it, and it seems most collectors prefer them. But to echo some of the others here, the later 5513's with glossy dials and white gold surrounds definitely have their own personality, and really seem to have a distinct following.

I just got one, and I absolutely love it. I've got a 14060 as well, and the two watches have a completely different feel. Ultimately, go with what grabs you.

Best of luck,
-GW

[springer]

I'd agree with some of the other guys here and agree that it is not highly collectable in the pre-owned or vintage market. But, with that said, complete sets from the 1980's, for the avid collector, are getting much harder to find these days - whether it is a Submariner, GMT, DateJust, Explorers or other Rolex models. It is a nice complete set though, and if I was looking for a no-date Submariner, this complete set would be nice to add to the collection. I'll say that $4500 to $5000 would be in the ballpark for the value.

[mray2686]

Hey guys -
Wanted to give you a quick update. I met the seller - he was the original owner. Had the sales receipt, box, papers, hang tag, anchor, cleaning cloth - I mean everything!
Watch was in fantastic shape. It really looked good.
Ended up making a deal with him, and I feel like I got this complete watch at a steal for 4k.
Here are some photos -enjoy.

[mray2686]

here's a few more

[springer]

Sounds like you received a very good price at $4000 and a great watch.

Enjoy!

[Gatt]

4.000 US$ (about 3.000 Euros) for a full set -one owner -late 5513? Thats a VERY good price, even too good. Now, bring it to your Rolex-authorized watchmaker for a full review.