1655 dial and bracelet question

[akassrugby]

Hello,

This watch has yet to be opened so I don't have photos of the movement and I also don't know the serial number. Dial looks like a mkII. The clasp seems to be not original, but the bracelet and end links are likely original? No documents or box so information is limited. Any other information you all can provide would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

[Dan S]

You don't need to open it to get the serial number, just remove the bracelet. As far as I know, a 9315 is not correct for a 1655. Not sure why you think that the clasp and bracelet are mismatched.

[akassrugby]

Originally Posted by Dan S

You don't need to open it to get the serial number, just remove the bracelet. As far as I know, a 9315 is not correct for a 1655. Not sure why you think that the clasp and bracelet are mismatched.

I read that a 9315 was used for a brief period but that clasp is not the flat clasp that originally came on it, though I could be wrong. Does the dial/date/hands look good to your eye? Many thanks

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by akassrugby

I read that a 9315 was used for a brief period but that clasp is not the flat clasp that originally came on it, though I could be wrong. Does the dial/date/hands look good to your eye? Many thanks

That's interesting, can you post where you read that? I was looking at the tables of original bracelets, and did not find 9315 paired with 1655, but tables can be wrong, so if there is an expert who knows differently, I'd like to hear more.

I'm not sure what you mean by flat clasp. Is there a date code on the blade? Can you show good photos of the clasp, the blades, and the flip-lock?

Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal, but if it's a 9315 clasp and it's paired with a legit 9315 bracelet, it's likely original. If the clasp broke in later years, it likely would have been replaced by a 93150 clasp.

And also, remove the bracelet and post the first few digits of the serial number between the lugs. That's really necessary if you want to get useful information.

[akassrugby]

Originally Posted by Dan S

That's interesting, can you post where you read that? I was looking at the tables of original bracelets, and did not find 9315 paired with 1655, but tables can be wrong, so if there is an expert who knows differently, I'd like to hear more.

I'm not sure what you mean by flat clasp. Is there a date code on the blade? Can you show good photos of the clasp, the blades, and the flip-lock?

Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal, but if it's a 9315 clasp and it's paired with a legit 9315 bracelet, it's likely original. If the clasp broke in later years, it likely would have been replaced by a 93150 clasp.

And also, remove the bracelet and post the first few digits of the serial number between the lugs. That's really necessary if you want to get useful information.

I can't find the forum post, I did find a youtube video and bob's listing with a 1655 with 9315, but I don't have enough activity to post them here.

The watch case serial number is 536xxxx. 1977. mk2 dial, mk bezel, both consistent.

The frustrating photo size limit makes posting a hassle, though I did clean the bracelet and take some photos. It is marked C on the blade, consistent with 1978. The sad reality is that I need to take a link out but doesn't seem to be a way without risking mangling due to having to unbend and rebend etc.

[akassrugby]

Originally Posted by Dan S

I'm not sure what you mean by flat clasp. Is there a date code on the blade? Can you show good photos of the clasp, the blades, and the flip-lock?

Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal, but if it's a 9315 clasp and it's paired with a legit 9315 bracelet, it's likely original. If the clasp broke in later years, it likely would have been replaced by a 93150 clasp.

And also, remove the bracelet and post the first few digits of the serial number between the lugs. That's really necessary if you want to get useful information.

Here are photos. Flat clasp I mean without the "brick" pattern, unsure of the clasp model names.

[XavierM]

Hi,
You’re maybe mixing things between the clasp and the flip lock.
On 9315 and early 93150 bracelets, the flip lock is flat, just like on your pictures.
Stamping of the end links is different from what I would expect, maybe some experts could chime in.
I don’t see any red flag on the rest of the bracelet, might be worth to check the « patented » stamping on the diving extension.
I have heard on several occasions some dealers, would let the customer choose the type of bracelet he wanted on his watch, could explain the presence of a 78 9315 on this one…

[Dan S]

Clasp looks fine for late 70s 9315, IMO.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by akassrugby

The sad reality is that I need to take a link out but doesn't seem to be a way without risking mangling due to having to unbend and rebend etc.

Go slowly and unbend the link as little as possible.

[TuRo]

Mk2 dial and Mk2 Bezel. 78 clasp.

I've not handled any 1655 with a 9315 but anything was possible back then (but the 580's seem to be not well fitting / spinning a bit).

I bought a 1655 back in the day with a 7206 cos the bracelet was unwanted by my dealer (he'd had it for 5 years) and did it nearly half price of a 7836.

The hands are very fresh, and quite yellow still, but I think perhaps orig. and not tritium service items.

Plexi and crown might be original.

[akassrugby]

Got the bracelet sized and it wears great. Thanks all for your help and knowledge here!

[akassrugby]

I have nice photos to share on imgur but not enough posts yet so here is 8..

[akassrugby]

9…..

[akassrugby]

10….

[akassrugby]

https://imgur.com/a/4BTn6WC :)

[MuchMoore]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Mk2 dial and Mk2 Bezel. 78 clasp.

I've not handled any 1655 with a 9315 but anything was possible back then (but the 580's seem to be not well fitting / spinning a bit).

I bought a 1655 back in the day with a 7206 cos the bracelet was unwanted by my dealer (he'd had it for 5 years) and did it nearly half price of a 7836.

The hands are very fresh, and quite yellow still, but I think perhaps orig. and not tritium service items.

Plexi and crown might be original.

I've been on the hunt for the proper bracelet for my 1655 and bumped into this Dealer Fact book which indicates the 9315...was correct? I can't seem to find any other sources that corroborate this, however.

[akassrugby]

Originally Posted by MuchMoore

I've been on the hunt for the proper bracelet for my 1655 and bumped into this Dealer Fact book which indicates the 9315...was correct? I can't seem to find any other sources that corroborate this, however.

Wow that's neat. Thanks for sharing. Yeah best I could find is a few other examples of 1655s on the 9315 for sale, with appropriate clasp year codes which makes me believe it was definitely possible it was sold this way as new. Other forum posts suggest that rolex dealers in the 70s/80s would happily sell any bracelet the buyer requested for the watch, I've even seen one on a correct jubilee but again unsure if it was original.

For my 1655, I just needed to tune up (rebend) the stretched out end links and it fits perfectly against the case and looks great.

[MuchMoore]

Originally Posted by akassrugby

Wow that's neat. Thanks for sharing. Yeah best I could find is a few other examples of 1655s on the 9315 for sale, with appropriate clasp year codes which makes me believe it was definitely possible it was sold this way as new. Other forum posts suggest that rolex dealers in the 70s/80s would happily sell any bracelet the buyer requested for the watch, I've even seen one on a correct jubilee but again unsure if it was original.

For my 1655, I just needed to tune up (rebend) the stretched out end links and it fits perfectly against the case and looks great.

My example actually had a Jubilee band from new so it's certainly possible ha. This might be sacrilegious - I like the look of the 9315 more than the 7836 and the "security" of the clasp action seems better.

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by MuchMoore

I've been on the hunt for the proper bracelet for my 1655 and bumped into this Dealer Fact book which indicates the 9315...was correct? I can't seem to find any other sources that corroborate this, however.

Interesting stuff 207, 218 ?

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Interesting stuff 207, 218 ?

Indeed. They are probably specialised part numbers, similar to ones on older UK catalogs. I've seen them on watch reference numbers.

[MuchMoore]

Originally Posted by akassrugby

:)

Looks fantastic, are those 580 end links?

[TuRo]

Look like 380's....the type fully connected to the end of the bracelet (the other identical shape were loose/unconnected 280's btw) both for 7836 and 9315 f-link bracelet. 580 of course for a 93150.

[akassrugby]

Originally Posted by MuchMoore

Looks fantastic, are those 580 end links?

They’re 380 end links

[MuchMoore]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Look like 380's....the type fully connected to the end of the bracelet (the other identical shape were loose/unconnected 280's btw) both for 7836 and 9315 f-link bracelet. 580 of course for a 93150.

Thank you for the clarification and context - I've found it difficult to learn the nuances between them :)