Forums Latest Members

5513 - should I run from this one?

  1. jimmyd13 Jan 18, 2017

    Posts
    3,147
    Likes
    7,133
    Hi Rolex-folks,

    forgive this intrusion from the Omega side but for the last few months, I've been actively searching for a 5513 and thought I'd found a good (or rather all original) one at auction ... I've just received detailed photos from the auction house and now I'm scared. Could I dip into your pool of knowledge and ask if this dial is as wrong as I now think it is?

    Close up of the font detail to save you from messing about:

    161_3a.jpg

    rest of the photos below ...
    161_3.jpg 161_4.jpg 161_5.jpg 161_6.jpg 161_7.jpg 161_8.jpg 161_9.jpg

    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Mapearso Jan 18, 2017

    Posts
    183
    Likes
    326
    trust your instincts
     
  3. Linesiders Stripers, not snook. Jan 19, 2017

    Posts
    527
    Likes
    2,254
    Hard to tell if the dial has damage or if some of the distortion is on the crystal. Otherwise looks like a decent Meters First 67 / 68.

    If the price is right, I'll take it ;)
     
    Foo2rama and watchknut like this.
  4. Andy K Dreaming about winning an OFfie one day. Jan 19, 2017

    Posts
    1,819
    Likes
    5,884
    I am totally green when it comes to vintage Subs so I might be missing something obvious. But can you share what it is that has you scared and why you think it is wrong?
     
  5. TTG Suffers from watch FOMO. Jan 19, 2017

    Posts
    886
    Likes
    1,008
    Foo2rama likes this.
  6. jimmyd13 Jan 19, 2017

    Posts
    3,147
    Likes
    7,133
    Thanks for the replies. What caused me to worry is the second 6, closed and slanted and the M in submariner ... I haven't found similar text in the examples I've pored over.

    If those more experienced in Rolex dials than me (so basically everyone) are happy that the text is all original then I'm happy to throw some bids at it.
     
  7. Faz Jan 19, 2017

    Posts
    3,524
    Likes
    21,381
    Looks consistent for an early serial matte mf dial. Typical puffy lume and fonts looks all correct. The "6"s in the "660" are correct from what I see in these pictures...the overall condition isn't optimal but decent. Don't go overboard on price..
    What's the serial on this?
     
  8. jimmyd13 Jan 19, 2017

    Posts
    3,147
    Likes
    7,133
    The serial number isn't available (not sure if that means the auction house hasn't looked or not saying). They catalogue it as a 67 with the bezel signed and dated "IV.67".

    It's got the right 9315 bracelet, right 280 end links, and most importantly (though this might sound really silly) ... it's got the "right dirt". It was only the odd font that had me worried and folks here have put my mind at ease on that.

    As for price ... it's catalogued with an estimate at the top end of what you'd expect to pay ... I'm willing to go mid estimate on it.

    Edit: just to be clear, the catalogue says the bezel is signed and dated ... I'm sure they mean the caseback.
     
  9. Faz Jan 19, 2017

    Posts
    3,524
    Likes
    21,381
    Good..make sure it falls in the correct serial range late 1,5 to early 2 mil, although that type dial is in the earlier range
     
    jimmyd13 likes this.
  10. omitohud Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    276
    Likes
    277
    The font looks like mine, so no issue there. That said, the crystal is not dome as it should and badly scratched. Hopefully the distortion is due to the scratches, not water ingress. Please consider service cost into your price as it badly needed one. If you can examine the watch in person, bring a loupe n check out the lumes especially around 3 to 5. Usually with Rolex from this period, the lume would still glow briefly. If everything checks out, it's not a bad watch. The insert alone is around 1k. Good luck.


    IMG_1747.JPG
     
    Ricbo2010 likes this.
  11. jimmyd13 Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    3,147
    Likes
    7,133
    Thanks @omitohud . Examination in person isn't possible - the auction is 5000 miles away. Another photo shows that distortion around the M is, in fact, the glass. Safe to assume that other apparent distortions are the same.

    If that glass is wrong, and I don't doubt you, is the correct replacement easily available?

    Best
     
  12. brunik Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    537
    Likes
    1,682
    The glass is a T19 and its not difficult to get...
     
  13. S.Song Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    97
    Likes
    206
    Yup T19 can easily sourced on VRF
     
  14. meganfox17 Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    1,411
    Likes
    3,434
    Hi @jimmyd13

    It's the intern rookie female, [emoji137] On Her Majesty's Secret Service , Agent Fox / meganfox17 [emoji137]

    Isnt that a 5513 Bart Simpson tropical dial ? Well I'm not a Rolex expert but it sure does look that way....

    No matter how tricky the photo is , I think I can still determine whether the dial markings are appropriate for that time period 1967. The watch ticks all the major criterias as agreed by the other esteemed readers. I'm pretty sure it's not a redial !
    Heck ! I'm guessing the serial number is somewhere between 1 75x xxx & 1 84x xxx[emoji4] [emoji15] If I'm right , once you've purchased the watch , give me a shout !
    The cropped photo of an original 5513 example from 1967 when superimposed on the 2 rows of fonts on your dial is a Direct Matchhttp://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5881e9a6368ff/DEXATI20170120182038.png?
    2017-01-20%2018.15.34.png The second '6' in the depth rating ( like the first 6 ) is indeed semi open or semi closed & angulated at a clockwise direction at 5° based on negative imaging of a magnification x 5 . Nobody screwed up the dial Sir. It's all good !
     
    blubarb, Vitezi, kkt and 4 others like this.
  15. jimmyd13 Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    3,147
    Likes
    7,133
    @meganfox17 intern, rookie or anything else, you feel free to comment on any of my posts.

    This isn't a Bart Simpson - they were a gilt font and the crown had a .. thicker, is the best word I can think of, base with stubby points. This is a 67 matt dial, metres first. There are lots out there and, in Rolex terms, they're not bad money but finding one that is all correct is tough. More, I like my watches to come with dirt. Not that it shouldn't have been cared for, but I want one that was used and loved. That has lived a life and has a tale to tell. I don't mind the odd ding. I have no problem with a relatively deep scratch ... but it's got to be "matching numbers". After that, I can do or have done, all that it needs to make it mine.

    Anyway, I've just got off the phone with the auction house. I've left a generous commission bid and we'll wait and see what happens.
     
  16. omitohud Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    276
    Likes
    277
    I think the key now is the scratches on the crystal. There is no doubt about the authenticity, but the condition of the dial can't be properly assessed. It could be a gem or a dud.

    There r 3 kinds of T19, super dome, dome, and service. Meter first should have the super dome but the one in auction has been replaced with service. This below is super dome.

    IMG_7450.JPG

    Super dome is unobtainable. Most available for sale r aftermarket. Honestly, I think the one on it is fine. It just needs a couple round of caring polish.
     
    Linesiders likes this.
  17. jimmyd13 Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    3,147
    Likes
    7,133
    That's something I'm less worried about. I have a few photos taken from different angles. Where something could possibly be amiss on the dial in one photo, it shows up as being right from a different angle. To try to explain how badly these scratches are distorting, look at the hand below:
    crop1.jpg

    Obviously there's nothing wrong with the hand but the glass distorts everything.

    I've blown up the photos to the point that I can count the pixels and it just looks right throughout ... now that you've all satisfied me as to the second 6 and the M. If I don't get this, it's because someone else is willing to pay above retail. I'll let you all know next week.
     
  18. The_Walrus Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    387
    Likes
    353
    Just be sure the serial number does not excess 2.0m. Anything past 2m would have been fitted with a feet first dial.
    I like this watch, true and honest.
     
  19. Linesiders Stripers, not snook. Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    527
    Likes
    2,254
    MMMMMmmmmm 67 Meters First....
     
    67-mf-12.JPG
    jimmyd13 likes this.
  20. The_Walrus Jan 20, 2017

    Posts
    387
    Likes
    353
    Mmmmmm PUFFY!!!!
     
    jimmyd13 and Linesiders like this.