5512 thoughts?

[dpa94114]

I'm not 100% sure why, but I think chapter rings are amazing - GMTs and subs.

Any thoughts on this? I like the gilt...the fade looks good - just thought I would check with the Sub experts.

thanks

[Comex1665]

It has a Service insert (Slim font) with a replaced pearl or modded pearl to make the tritium lume match the dial hour marker and hands ...

Not sure if it is the lightning condition but the hands Especially the jour Hand doesnt match with dial markers maybe replaced hands or maybe light condition when picture has Been taken.

The bezel is an original one though when you look at How the Teeth are cut.

Some polishing work on the lugs (which isn't Best) ..

Good thing about it is that the pointed Crown guard looks in good shape.

Do you know the serial number ? From what year it is ?

I hope This helps

[dpa94114]

I believe it is from late 1960/early 1961. I thought one hand looked a bit lighter than the other one...

Thank you - very helpful

[Comex1665]

Would be great if it Come with its original 7206

[Beaumont Miller II]

I would like to see a better pic before I say more.

[stillsane]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

I would like to see a better pic before I say more.

x2

[dpa94114]

not the best pictures....

[Beaumont Miller II]

Thus far not impressed with the pics.
My thoughts:
Anyone selling this watch would be wise to take off the $200.00 mid font flat four in favor of a correct mk2 long 5 insert.
Anyone selling this watch would do well to show better pics and more of them, specifically looking between the lugs to make sure the serial number range corresponds to 1959-1960 where the 2 line silver and gold 5512 dials were typically found.
Anyone selling this watch would also do well to show a pic of the movement to make sure it has the 1530 calibre.
Just my thoughts...

[Michael M.]

Dial has been refinished, and is not original.

[Beaumont Miller II]

For starters, I have a problem with the coronet. It does not look like the mk1 coronet that first appeared on the 5512 dials.

[Kingface66]

Here's the source:
http://www.chrono24.fi/rolex/submari...-id3438408.htm

[dpa94114]

The serial number and 1530 look ok - the caseback seems to be a replacement. The seller doesn't have much of a history, so I wasn't comfortable moving forward.

I always think it's interesting to hear different opinions - try to filter out what I should be looking for in the future.

thanks again.

[Wing Zero]

I'm always suspect of a 55 year old case with little to no bracelet wear between the lugs
I'm always suspect of a 55 year old case with no corrosion where the caseback meets the case
I'm always suspect of a 55 year old case with no service markings on the caseback

It is of my opinion that the bezel and insert are aftermarket.
It is of my opinion that the crown is aftermarket, has no crimping for a 702
I'm pretty sure the dial (which is the most expensive part of the watch) is a re-dial / fake

[brandrea]

Isn't it a 5513

[willang]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Isn't it a 5513

From my limited understanding, 5512 of that time period comes in 2 and 4 liners

[dpa94114]

The first thought was that it was a service dial - which would explain why it doesn't look like the standard 5512 dial seen, but not a fake.

Does anyone have any other shots of a service dial for a 5512?

[mtl514]

That's a fake, the gilt is just printed on a matt surface.. A service dial says Swiss t<25

[Beaumont Miller II]

In addition the case back should have the quarter and date on the inside.

[bkertzer89]

Word

[themaninblack]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

In addition the case back should have the quarter and date on the inside.

Not always, can be a replacement case back.

The position of the 5512 marking is unusual though.

The consistency of the matte surface of the dial is unusual. Normally there would at least be remnants of the gloss finish around the indices and chapter ring.

There is a lot of inconsistency in vintage Rolex of this era but something is NQR here.

[Beaumont Miller II]

...case back should have date if original to the watch.

[themaninblack]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

...case back should have date if original to the watch.

This is generally true but a genuine replacement caseback is still a correct caseback. When watches go for service to Rolex if the caseback is damaged in some way they will replace it, that is standard. Nothing suspicious about it, just as they replace any worn or damaged part of the movement, no-one says, "hey that cannon pinion has been replaced"! Does it detract from the watch? Each to his own on that. Maybe it affects the collectibility a bit but it is not wrong in any way.

[Beaumont Miller II]

Of course you are correct.

A service caseback is a correct caseback, a service dial is a correct dial, a service insert is a correct insert, and a service case is a correct case... nothing suspicious, just not period correct.

When the OP asks whether members on the forum have any thoughts on the watch, I think its pertinent to point out that certain parts are not original to the watch to help him assess whether the watch at the asking price is a reasonable value.

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Of course you are correct.

A service caseback is a correct caseback, a service dial is a correct dial, a service insert is a correct insert, and a service case is a correct case... nothing suspicious, just not period correct.

When the OP asks whether members on the forum have any thoughts on the watch, I think its pertinent to point out that certain parts are not original to the watch to help him assess whether the watch at the asking price is a reasonable value.

[dpa94114]

Originally Posted by bkertzer89

Word

are you saying there is no service dial with a chapter ring? The dial with t<25 is not a chapter ring (and the chapter ring is the whole point)...