I've put this in the "Open Discussion" forum because I would like to solicit opinions from anyone who cares to offer one rather than just the Rolex experts (you're very welcome to chime in as well). Backstory: bought this vintage Rolco a year or more ago. It's had to wait for parts and then been through the tender caresses of two experiened watchmakers. It's now back to original and being timed. Except, when I say it's back to original, it's back to what I thought was original. My watch maker has sent me a photo which seems to show that the dial was originally printed "Rolex" and not "Rolco". Obviously I don't have the watch in hand so I can't add more macro shots to this one. Everything about the watch, except the name, does scream Rolex: it's got a nicely decorated Aegler/Rebberg movement; Rolex signed wheels ... let's have some photos ... as I sent the watch away: Dial side of the movement (I don't seem to have the other side photographed): The dial: and so you don't have to zoom, the very clear ghost of "Rolex" under "Rolco": For those who've not heard of Rolco, it's a sub-brand of Rolex along the lines of Unicorn or Marconi which traded in 1927 but was phased out soon after as Wilsdorf settled on the new brand of Tudor. This watch I had initially taken to be a gold trench from the late 1910s or even 1920s (when I first saw it in a cabinet in an auction room) but on seeing the Rolco brand I "knew" it had to be 1927 or later. Now I'm left wondering if this started life as a Rolex only to be unsold and rebranded before it even left the factory? If someone had decided to redial the watch later in life, why brand it Rolco when it would have been as easy to sign the dial Rolex and add some cachet and value? There seems to be a lot of mystery around Rolco watches and I'm throwing this one out there for any thoughts that the OF hive mind can provide .... please?
I’ll throw a theory... Salesman watch. A quick run of watches with off the shelf parts and a mild redial so they could show them off to retailers. It makes no sense for someone to have done it later. All my info shows a rolco would not have that movement with rolex signed parts. All examples I can find seem to have Beguelin & Cie S.A. or BTCo. movements.
most salesman watches didn't have a movement in them because they weren't required to tell the time only display what the watch would look like. even the case design is weird because if it's from the late 20's we're well past the transitional phase of wrist watch design unless this is a ladies watch. does the watch have UK hallmarks?
Thanks for all the comments so far .... I like this theory, but liking it doesn't make it the most likely explanation because ... While not impossible, most odd watches that are claimed to be prototypes are soon proved to be otherwise I'm with you here on this too. It's certainly not a ladies' watch as it really is quite large - something close to 35mm and eminently wearable by today's standards. Would that they could have made it that easy! The case bears the number 3721 and a mark saying "Buffalo Quality" (I'm trying to recall now if this is rolled gold and not solid ... if it is rolled gold, it's not rubbed through anywhere). So ... I'm still of the opinion that this is a NOS Rolex that has sat in the factory for a decade and then been "re-badged" to sell old stock. Obviously the hinged case wristwatches were far from fashionable by the end of the 1920s. Does anyone on here have something similar, either Rolex or Rolco, that might give some more clues; or, do the serial numbers make sense to anyone? I'm still groping in the dark here.
Google image searches for Rolco show some obvious fakes. Ie dual branded Rolex and rolco with Rolex movements. My research says they would not have left the factory dual branded., and Rolco would not have had Rolex branded movements. These appear to have had the Rolco added later based on print quality. There is also a lot of bad info out there that Rolco is the name of early Rolex... I think the watch was a Rolex and maybe someone later put Rolco on it in an attempt to increase the value? Why else are there obvious Rolexes with Rolco added later as a dual branding. I understand your problem... data on these is a minefield with plenty of bad data, that needs to be separated from what is true. At the end of the day it’s a seriously cool piece.
Below is a copy of the post I just made to TRF: [QUOTE="I picked this watch up today ... damn thing's gaining a second a day! Seeing as there's only been one comment, I thought I would add what I have found: bottom line is that this appears to be all original and one of the very first Rolcos that was originally built as a Rolex but had its brand changed in factory. Vlad's post above already shows that the style of case is correct for the date, along with the mis-aligned print on the subdial. The "SWISS MADE" print had me concerned both because of the date and the way that it doesn't follow the seconds track well. Today, my watchmaker pulled out this Unicorn dial: The font on that dial and on mine is identical. The Unicorn dial is smaller than the Rolco but the size of the text is the same on both. It looks like that accounts for why the text doesn't follow the seconds track correctly but, again, is correct for the make and date. The movement is odd. You would expect to find a Begeulin movement inside this case but this is a Rebberg. That said, it's not decorated as you would expect to see in a Rolex of this period (my earlier comment that it was must be my early-onset and some confusion with another vintage Rolex - I've had a few lately). More than that, it's not fully jeweled with only 7 jewels. That said, it does carry the name Rolex on the wheel. So, we've got a watch that was made with an Aegler movement, though a lower grade than would be expected in a Rolex; that was originally signed as Rolex; and, also had a Rolex signed dial. That dial was altered before the watch was sold. All of this fits in if you say that the watch was, quite literally, the first run of Rolcos off the line - maybe not even off the "line", but a true one-off to trial the new brand name. A "prototype", if you will. "[/QUOTE] There's a few more photos below of the watch and a reference photo of another Unicorn from a TRF member (Vlad) for those interested. As always, I welcome any and all comments!