Forums Latest Members

Early Explorer 1016, with a Twist

  1. kelev_ra Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    492
    Likes
    238
    Well, why are people hand engraving unit-numbers, serial numbers, movement numbers, "to my first wife with love" etc. on the caseback or on the case itself?
    I've seen pretty much every kind of engraving on pretty much every kind of watch... Why people do that? Don't know.
    If you like I could engrave your watches with whatever engraving you like. I got pretty shaky hands - so I could guarantee you that "Rolex factory" look. ;)
     
  2. kelev_ra Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    492
    Likes
    238
    Also, notice something important above? Every single watch with those unique 20% "Rolex factory" engravings has serious pitting between the lugs. Almost like you could imagine it to be really hard to still recognize a serial number at all - if it wouldn't be extra special "Rolex factory" engraved... ::popcorn::
     
    Tony C. likes this.
  3. Nobel Prize Spell Master! Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    6,832
    Likes
    13,409
    I Have never seen anything like it. I have had 60’s Rolex and nothing seemed to be done by a nervous 5 year old on caffeine.

    It is still a great watch, but I think somewhere along the line it got serviced by a watch maker that thought he should “help” the engravings a little.
     
    Edited Feb 11, 2021
    WatchCor, Dan S and kelev_ra like this.
  4. sleepyastronaut Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    963
    Likes
    1,227
    I still don't understand, why would anyone add the words 'Stainless Steel' to the caseback? It doesn't read like a personalization.
     
  5. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,039
    They would do so if they somehow believed, no matter how absurdly, that it might add "authenticity" to the watch.

    There is zero chance that Rolex was responsible for it.
     
  6. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,039
    After further research, I think that I may have found a "factory original" dial from the same source...

    aposlk.png
     
    JimJupiter, kov, Lucasssssss and 2 others like this.
  7. Caliber561 Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    1,473
    Likes
    2,511
    Steel Rolex ovettones and early Explorers did typically have this light engraving for "Registered Design/Modele Depose" on the caseback exterior. The font is quite similar, so I would think it's fairly plausible the engraving is original given the provenance.
     
  8. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,039
    Some examples, please?

    I do see that Rolex didn't always stamp "stainless steel" inside the case backs, which may help to support some claims, but not this one. In any case, I still can't believe that such poor quality originated in a factory – any factory.
     
    Edited Feb 11, 2021
  9. Caliber561 Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    1,473
    Likes
    2,511
  10. Caliber561 Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    1,473
    Likes
    2,511
    /responding to the edit:

    CNC machines didn't exist in the 60s. Pantographs and other engraving tools could be extremely accurate, sure, but watches weren't held to the same high standard that they are today as luxury products. It's very easy to forget that these were just regular timepieces built to a high standard, as does everyone who claims a dial is fake or redone because of a minutely misaligned index, etc.

    Rolex only shifted it's entire appeal towards luxury in the 70s/80s.
     
    Mooieklokjes likes this.
  11. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,039
    I see engravings that look nothing like the OP's through that link (they are much finer). Can you provide any that are similar to the OP's, and that you also believe to be "factory original"?

    We're not talking about anything remotely close to high standards in this instance – we're talking about a lack of any standards. And I'm not being flippant.

    Are you aware of any Rolex collector, or dealer, etc. ever having received authentication from Rolex for a watch with such terrible quality engravings?

    I'm with @kelev_ra (and Occam's Razor) in believing that the simplest and most likely explanation is that some sellers who had watches with degraded case backs or mid-cases chose to re-engrave, and failed miserably.

    Also, consider how many Explorers were produced up to the early '60s, and have circulated over the decades. The handful that have been used as supporting evidence would represent only a tiny fraction of those produced.
     
  12. cvalue13 Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    3,979
    Likes
    8,393
    So, there seems a conflation going on now.

    There have been many watch examples posted (or linked to) with some *fairly* shoddy engraving work on any number of parts of watches.

    Then there has separately been a watch with *extremely* shoddy engraving work on the caseback.

    Am I right that we've now turned a corner to using the latter to disprove the legitimacy of even the former?

    It seems to me one (more difficult) thing to out of hand discount the perhaps *surprising* degree of quality variation of early engraving when placed under macro.

    It seems another (separate) thing to talk about the specific caseback in question?
     
    Nobel Prize likes this.
  13. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,039
    I don't think so. I am skeptical of all of the markings on the OP's watch, and any that are extremely shoddy found on other examples. Yes, I find the case back to be even more dubious, and have no problem discussing it separately, but I am still awaiting anything like what I would consider to be compelling evidence that either of them are likely to be original.
     
    cvalue13 likes this.
  14. cvalue13 Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    3,979
    Likes
    8,393
    Fair enough, but I guess to put it differently:

    Your line of argument seem to be (please allow some hyperbole for effect :D): factories make things nearly perfect, so wildly bad things are unlikely

    And I'm just noting that this line of reasoning seems to ignore the numerous examples of things not leaving the factory perfectly and being *sort of* shoddy, which means it's not such a stretch to believe in terrible outliers.

    I dont take a position on the caseback in question, and I'm also interested to see more confirmation or otherwise.

    Afterall :D

    [​IMG]
     
    Caliber561 likes this.
  15. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,039
    Like you, I am well aware of variations in quality that occurred back then (e.g. IWC dial signatures, etc.), so I have no expectations of perfection, or anything really close. What I do expect, though, is a reasonable floor to the flaws that manufacturers, and especially major ones, made. I cannot recall ever have seen anything so shockingly poor as the scratches on the subject watch. It is beyond my comprehension how or why QC at Rolex might have allowed such work to reach the market.

    I posted the obviously redialed Eterna not only as a joke, but also to suggest that I really can't think of any close analogue to the subject engravings. Have you ever seen work anywhere near that poor, from any major brand?

    I can't comment on the contemporary examples that you posted, as they appear to be graphic representations of dials, rather than actual ones.
     
    cvalue13 likes this.
  16. pdxleaf ... Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    4,244
    Likes
    14,195
    The following is complete conjecture and not based on history, i.e. a supposition.

    Agreeing that this wasn't factory, why would anyone add "stainless steel?"

    Consider pre-internet, pre-collecting, before watch as jewelry with precious metals (yes, there were some, but did the general population desire these?)

    Is it just as simple that a few guys added it and it caught on?

    There was a time before Marks and sub-Marks, when a Rolex was just a nicer watch and people had no thought about calibers.

    Sometimes things happen without a plan or coordination. This is an interesting discussion and I would like to know the actual history of the poor engravings, but it makes sense to me it was random and just happened. Engraving to cover up pitting makes sense. Stainless steel used to be special and modern, so why not?
     
  17. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,039
    First, because "stainless steel" is stamped on the inside of the case back, and in the quality that one would expect. So why on earth would the same company have employed someone to also scratch a terrible, redundant message by hand on the case back?
     
  18. pdxleaf ... Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    4,244
    Likes
    14,195
    Sorry, I was unclear. I don't believe it was either the company or a company agent. It makes more sense to me that it was done by a watchmaker or watchmakers who at best were motivated to spice up or make nicer a clients watch. The idea that a watchmaker would add a an engraving to hide or fix a disfigured area (as has been suggested) makes sense to me, more so than that it was done so by the factory.

    As to why they put SS, I was speculating that SS was still a neat feature that could be reasonable to engrave if someone were searching for what to put there.
     
  19. Caliber561 Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    1,473
    Likes
    2,511

    :rolleyes:
     
  20. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,039
    Ah, sorry. I agree.
     
    pdxleaf likes this.