Hi gang. Have a very specific question regarding the shape of the very 1st gen 1655 case, specifically where the crown guards are said to be nearly SPCGs. The nuance is detailed here:

Source: https://www.watchprosite.com/?page=wf.forumpost&q=&fi=732&ti=574096&pi=3563066

I'd like to converse with anyone who has one of these IN HAND, would be very helpful. Please PM me if you're so lucky.

I will follow-up here with whatever I learn.

UPDATE: What I learned: – the distinction between the crown guards of the Mark I and all later cases, while real, was not as dramatic or pronounced as the photo and quote from the linked post might lead you to believe.

Good advice in general: Beware of anyone trying to explain anything on a watch as part of a rare or exotic deviance from the standard spec. These deviances did occur but are usually easily verified in speaking to more experienced collectors or dealers. Dealers were especially helpful to me here.

 

I've held several straight-hand 1655s, and I currently own an MK2 1655 (5.4 million). There were indeed subtle differences in the crown guards on those early versions, but in my opinion, it was not nearly as pronounced as detailed in that link. The MKI example with the photo is of a case that has been polished, and quite a bit, and I believe that is actually giving it more of that pointy look to the crown guards.

 

Absolutely agree with this re: the effect of polishing in the pictured example. Ten years on (the incisive WPS article was written in 2009) there are lots of examples on the web that illustrate the point more effectively.

 

I’d love it if you would post a few. I’ve actually found it very difficult to find good references of the MK1 crown guards from the angles you would want to accurately assess them.

Here is a photo of the one I was offered, and they are far more pointy/polished than the one in the article I referenced.



Seen from the side in a still from a video and it gets worse. Seems like this was just a case mishandled in polishing.



Thanks guys for your input.

 

Yes, those are very badly and overly polished crown guards. You can’t use that as an example, except for what to avoid.

Here’s an easy way to see many good examples: Go to HQ Milton’s website, search for 1655s, and look through the archives of sold watches. You’ll see quite a few straight-hand 1655s with good photos of the cases/crown guards.

 

@swish77 @onthedial Can we talk about chamfers for a minute? I see a really wide range of finishes here, and would like to know if anyone is confident as to how these cases left the factory.

The ones I find more credible and in harmony with the design and purpose of the watch tend to look like this... which is to say almost no chamfer.




But I still see deeper, so-called Bexley-style chamfers on a large number (below). My assumption is always that these were refinished somewhere at some stage, but not by Rolex.



Could also have been a factory finish at some stage (?), but seems a little off to me. I get a lot of different answers re: the original case finish when talking to local collectors and dealers, so I'm curious if anyone feels they've got a handle on it.

 

Keep in mind that no two RSCs will refinish a watch the same way, and no two independent watchmakers will refinish a watch the same way. That's why it's all over the map. Tough for anyone to get a complete "handle," but I've seen many, many 1655s over the years.

My two cents ...

Your first photo shows an example that has been over-polished. There is virtually no chamfer, the lugs holes are somewhat rounded out, and the crown guards have lost that chunky, almost square look.

You want to see chamfers on the lugs much closer to the example in your second photograph. That watch most likely was refinished, but I think it was done well. The lug holes are still flat and the crown guards are still fat.

For comparison, here's my 1655 below. I'm not the original owner, but I'm fairly certain it has been refinished at some point, but only lightly. Still retains thick lugs and crown guards and still has its chamfers.

 

Beautiful piece.

And yes, chamfers. I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before but here was one obvious place to look for answers.

Hard to see how deep/wide they flare out toward the lug holes, probably not as much as some of the refinish jobs I’ve seen, but definitely cut.

 

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=398135

This one looks legit. The one shown on the watchprosite has been repolished.

A refinisher, however, can recut the chamfers but then the lugs get thinner and you can usually tell.

Unless he spends a lot of time building up the case, adding metal using laser welding and then recuts the case to factory spec. (huge rabbit hole)

 

Great thread. Fantastic to see this level of analysis, since so many of these pieces are being refinished these days, and the chamfers are often overdone.

 

Yup, Michael Morgan at Iconic is a great dealer. That was a nice watch, with a 2015 price! (Not sure I 100 percent agree it was an unpolished case, but still great.)