- Posts
- 8,098
- Likes
- 28,531
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury member
Interesting! But apples and oranges, as the QC issues on the OP's watch would have been obvious to Ray Charles, had he been employed by Rolex at the time. 😁
Early Explorer 1016, with a Twist
Interesting! But apples and oranges, as the QC issues on the OP's watch would have been obvious to Ray Charles, had he been employed by Rolex at the time. 😁
- Posts
- 963
- Likes
- 1,251
sleepyastronaut
·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.
Stainless Steel was a neat feature in watches in the 1930s, I imagine no longer novel by the 1960s.
- Posts
- 603
- Likes
- 2,567
t_swiss_t
·The best related reference that I have found thus far is here:
https://explorer1016.com/components/case/
Hi Tony - sorry, went to bed and have been at work. First off, the site you referred to as the best related reference is my site. Hence why I said I have researched this before. Glad you like it though and found it useful.
This is also why I said it’s a bit pointless to argue with someone who hasn’t seen and studied these. You come to conclusions in 10 minutes and then stick to your guns, despite admitting you don’t know Rolex well.
Also, with respect to people faking terrible engravings to sell them, I mentioned that I bought this from the original owner’s family, and paid them well, since the piece was correct and had a single ownership for 61 years.
As to why Rolex did this, or any of their other 100 oddball things in the 50-60s like exclamation points, underlines, transitional dials, the occasional white dial, etc., I, nor anyone else, knows. Rolex has never released records, explanations, guides, etc. The most we have are catalogues and parts books but those cover a fraction of the information and nothing like this. So, post hoc it is, and it takes time to learn. I asked about 20 people who have collected in Rolex for years and each were fine with the engraving. If you think there is some cabal, there are plenty of other and more fun conspiracy theories to believe.
Also, arguing that an entirely consistent watch (unblemished dial, unpolished case, no marks on the screws, no service marks) somehow had a singular aftermarket change, which would have no point since it was only seen by the owner, if even they noticed it, is illogical.
But I am not likely to convince you, so I am sorry to have upset you. I will post some pictures of the serial/model engravings between the lugs when I get home.
- Posts
- 6,832
- Likes
- 13,797
Nobel Prize
·Also, guys, if the engraving was so bad and inconsistent at Rolex then....why is the engraving so good on the movement and the interior of the case back?
If the argument is “the technology was not there” then the then the logic would not be there for any of it.
If the argument is “the technology was not there” then the then the logic would not be there for any of it.
- Posts
- 8,098
- Likes
- 28,531
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberThis is also why I said it’s a bit pointless to argue with someone who hasn’t seen and studied these. You come to conclusions in 10 minutes and then stick to your guns, despite admitting you don’t know Rolex well.
I don't need to know Rolex well in order to mount a strong argument. If you are able to counter my argument, then readers may be persuaded. But anecdotes, such as asking "about 20 people who have collected in Rolex for years and each were fine with the engraving", aren't compelling. There is the danger of strong confirmation bias at work, as all of those, including yourself, who own examples with similar engraving, would obviously want to believe that they are original.
I'll repeat just one of my questions: As "stainless steel" is stamped on the inside of the case back, and in the quality that one would expect, why on earth would Rolex have employed someone to also scratch an additional, terribly executed, and redundant message by hand on the case back? If you can produce a cogent explanation, then I will open my mind to the possibility that it is original. If you are unable to, however, then I frankly can't imagine why anyone would.
As to why Rolex did this, or any of their other 100 oddball things in the 50-60s like exclamation points, underlines, transitional dials, the occasional white dial, etc., I, nor anyone else, knows.
That is not at all compelling, as we aren't talking about design anomalies here, we're talking about shockingly poor quality, of the kind that is almost never - if ever - found on original vintage watches manufactured by major companies.
If you think there is some cabal, there are plenty of other and more fun conspiracy theories to believe.
You either aren't reading carefully, or are producing a straw man. I have explained what I believe to be the case, and that alternative explanation is not only logical, but far more in line with Occam's Razor.
Don't worry, though, you haven't upset me at all. I enjoy a good debate.
- Posts
- 24,263
- Likes
- 54,031
Dan S
·With respect to the lume, various early Subs (e.g. 6536) had a different lume compound at the 6 o'clock marker, supposedly to make it more noticeable when looking quickly while diving. The marker looks different to the naked eye and also under excitation. This is common and well-known. It was in the late 50s and nothing to do with tritium. Just a different radium lume composition with more phosphor and a slightly different pigment.
- Posts
- 487
- Likes
- 1,719
mzinski
·@t_swiss_t lovely watch with some interesting characteristics!
After reading the discussion I'm left with a few questions:
- What does the watch read on a geiger counter?
- Did the original owner indicate if he ever had it serviced?
- Are the case clamp screw marred at all?
A few points of speculation and curiosity on my part:
- If the theory of watchmakers of yester-year re-engraving worn serial numbers were to hold true, one would assume we'd see evidence of service. Service marks, screwdriver marks on the screws, etc. I suppose one could stretch to suggest the case back and movement were wholesale replaced on this one...
- If it's unscrupulous sellers who are re-engraving, one would assume the original owner would have commanded top dollar for this knowing what it was worth with factory serial markings. @t_swiss_t didn't indicate that was how the deal went down.
- From what I understand the serial markings were hand engraved at the time. I also understand Rolex didn't put forth the same QA/QC it does now. 5512 were fitted with 5513 case backs. Incorrect stampings were crossed out and double stamped. Parts were used until the supply dried up crossing references. Even better, look at the hand applied lume on Explorer dials. The quality is all over the map. This is to say, yes, I can believe Rolex would allow sub-par engravings out of the factory in those days.
After reading the discussion I'm left with a few questions:
- What does the watch read on a geiger counter?
- Did the original owner indicate if he ever had it serviced?
- Are the case clamp screw marred at all?
A few points of speculation and curiosity on my part:
- If the theory of watchmakers of yester-year re-engraving worn serial numbers were to hold true, one would assume we'd see evidence of service. Service marks, screwdriver marks on the screws, etc. I suppose one could stretch to suggest the case back and movement were wholesale replaced on this one...
- If it's unscrupulous sellers who are re-engraving, one would assume the original owner would have commanded top dollar for this knowing what it was worth with factory serial markings. @t_swiss_t didn't indicate that was how the deal went down.
- From what I understand the serial markings were hand engraved at the time. I also understand Rolex didn't put forth the same QA/QC it does now. 5512 were fitted with 5513 case backs. Incorrect stampings were crossed out and double stamped. Parts were used until the supply dried up crossing references. Even better, look at the hand applied lume on Explorer dials. The quality is all over the map. This is to say, yes, I can believe Rolex would allow sub-par engravings out of the factory in those days.
- Posts
- 24,263
- Likes
- 54,031
Dan S
·I haven't read the whole thread, but I think that it's more appropriate to say that engraving was done with a Pantograph, as opposed to hand engraving. A subtle difference I suppose.
- Posts
- 963
- Likes
- 1,251
sleepyastronaut
·@t_swiss_tDid the original owner indicate if he ever had it serviced?
He doesn't indicate anything anymore, he dead.
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
cvalue13
·Don't worry, though, you haven't upset me at all. I enjoy a good debate.
great then!
If the theory of watchmakers of yester-year re-engraving worn serial numbers were to hold true, one would assume
One might also assume that this hypothetical solution would be equally rampant with all watch makes, not just Rolex, no? Why would watchmakers etc servicing only Rolex think to spruce up the engravings?
I put hypothetical in italics because above, Tony, you made rather strong critique of @t_swiss_t using “anecdotal” evidence. It’s not as though hypotheticals are a stronger form of evidence.
Point being, if we didn’t have access to either hypothetical or anecdotal evidence when discussing the nuances of old watches wtf would be left to talk about?
Which makes me wonder what sort of proof would satisfy you, @Tony C.? And I mean, what sort of proof that is ever reasonably available to these sorts of vintage watch nuance discussions?
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 mean, what does this even mean? You seem here to be suggesting that either (A) the OPs watch is altogether fake, or (B) you’d expect Rolex to “authenticate” only a piece of engraving on a watch?
...
Again, I don’t know enough about vintage Rolex to stake a position on the validity of OPs observations and claims about the “stainless” caseback engravings. I’m only a bystander intrigued by the discussion, but also a little surprised at your vigor in and manner of refuting the OPs position. It feels almost as if you have an early childhood engraving-related trauma and the OPs claims have you triggered.
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
cvalue13
·PS: we’re none of us going to just let this gem of an exchange slide:
The best related reference that I have found thus far is here:
https://explorer1016.com/components/case/
the site you referred to as the best related reference is my site. Hence why I said I have researched this before. Glad you like it though and found it useful.
- Posts
- 86
- Likes
- 107
993watch
·@Tony C. This has been an entertaining thread for me to read tonight. I don't know why you are pressing an argument with an expert in vintage Rolex. He has been patient and kind to debate the subject, but seriously... what experience do you have to be refuting the proof already presented? The 1016 in question is one of the coolest and more interesting examples I've seen. It's clearly original with the provenance to support it's originality. I'm all for a spirited debate to challenge opinions and accepted facts and believe that's how we all grow and learn, but your persistence without proof to the contrary is counterproductive.
- Posts
- 6,832
- Likes
- 13,797
Nobel Prize
·In Tonyc’s defense, he’s not saying the watch is a fake. He’s just saying he does not believe the engraving comes from Rolex.
As it pertains to the specific stainless steel engraving on that case back I agree with him. I don’t think it’s how the watch left the factory. How it got there? Who knows? Was some distributor marking SS cases so they wouldn’t be confused with something else? Was the name of the owner Stainless Steel ( now that would be a cool resolution!!)
It’s not just the quality of the engraving, it’s also the depth of it compared to a normal engraving.
now if the watch had been polished and then re engraved badly or something? But Rolex case backs tend to be pretty clear of engraving.
I don’t know. I really don’t. I can only say it doesn’t look right to me either. Am I right? Am I wrong? I don’t know and either option is not going to keep me from sleeping tonight. I’m not selling or buying the piece, nor am I writing a review on it...
The watch is still an amazing and beautiful example.
As it pertains to the specific stainless steel engraving on that case back I agree with him. I don’t think it’s how the watch left the factory. How it got there? Who knows? Was some distributor marking SS cases so they wouldn’t be confused with something else? Was the name of the owner Stainless Steel ( now that would be a cool resolution!!)
It’s not just the quality of the engraving, it’s also the depth of it compared to a normal engraving.
now if the watch had been polished and then re engraved badly or something? But Rolex case backs tend to be pretty clear of engraving.
I don’t know. I really don’t. I can only say it doesn’t look right to me either. Am I right? Am I wrong? I don’t know and either option is not going to keep me from sleeping tonight. I’m not selling or buying the piece, nor am I writing a review on it...
The watch is still an amazing and beautiful example.
- Posts
- 494
- Likes
- 239
kelev_ra
·In Tonyc’s defense, he’s not saying the watch is a fake. He’s just saying he does not believe the engraving comes from Rolex.
As it pertains to the specific stainless steel engraving on that case back I agree with him. I don’t think it’s how the watch left the factory. How it got there? Who knows? Was some distributor marking SS cases so they wouldn’t be confused with something else? Was the name of the owner Stainless Steel ( now that would be a cool resolution!!)
It’s not just the quality of the engraving, it’s also the depth of it compared to a normal engraving.
now if the watch had been polished and then re engraved badly or something? But Rolex case backs tend to be pretty clear of engraving.
I don’t know. I really don’t. I can only say it doesn’t look right to me either. Am I right? Am I wrong? I don’t know and either option is not going to keep me from sleeping tonight. I’m not selling or buying the piece, nor am I writing a review on it...
The watch is still an amazing and beautiful example.
The watch is definitely not a fake - no one said that.
But also the engravings between the lugs are definitely not from Rolex but from some shady seller who wanted to preserve it because of the pitting etc. The "similar" engravings you showed us do look nothing like the "stainless steel" engravings on the caseback of the 1016 and were stemped into the case.
But how did the engravings got there? You still ask that. Of course no one knows for sure - it is a pretty old watch that maybe got 40 different owners over the time.
So, there are two options:
- Some giddy Rolex employee once thought it would be a good idea to hand engrave the words "Stainless Steel" to the caseback as he thought that would add some value or that it would just look really slick on it, as all the other watches don't have that. After he did that, quality control said "well, not as all the others, but let's sell it". After that the watch was shipped to an AD who was super glad that he got - what he was sure at that point - a "prototype watch" directly from Rolex. So, of course, just minutes after a costumer came in and wanted that exact watch with those wiggly engravings as I knew that one day people will recognize this as a factory added spec. "Of course, cause who else would engrave "stainless steel" if not Rolex itself.
I'll add: This is what you seem to find plausible.
Or - and I prefer this version:
The watch was owned by something between 5 and 15 owners over the time. One of those did not speak English at all. After seeing the words "stainless steel" on the inside of the caseback he though "oh well, this must be the exact watch model I got" - so he engraved the words on the caseback - by hand of course.
And: You can see pretty much all kinds of hand engravings on pretty much every kind of watch. People back then did not care if one day this will be a 20 or 30k watch.
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
cvalue13
·^^^I’m following everything you said above @Nobel Prize , and sheepishly nodding in agreement (but sheepishly because t_swiss is an expert compared to me).
Until...
This seems to be a point along the same lines as your prior point about the different quality of engraving on the inside of the caseback.
But I’m (1) unaware of any proof that the interior/exterior engravings were done by the same method (or even same manufacturer?) at Rolex, and (2) I thought there were more caseback engravings than might be shrugged off as unlikely?
Additionally, depending on where these watches were cased, imported, and exported, were they not sometimes stamped or engraved on the exterior in connection with laws or conveniences associated with the relevant import/export regime?
I’m here only trying to open any logical space for it, but one scenario could look like this: all interior casebacks of a model year were engraved with machine type X to Y standards, but then an earmarked batch needed to be exported to [location] whose import rules required (or made convenient) an exterior notation of case material - and so that earmarked batch was then engraved by machine type A to B standards.
Here’s a different version of this sort of scenario, involving the French and Hermès, and known legit factory engravings/stamps:
These markings were required by France’s import standards (as to the materials stamp) or by the purchaser Hermès (as to the engraving), and applied by Rolex at factory but not by means of the same methods or standards used to produce other markings on the watch (including the interior caseback marks).
Here’s another such Hermès example, confirmed by both Rolex and Hermès to be original from factory (with respect to the caseback and engravings at least):
compared to the inner caseback of this same watch:
Notice in particular:
-> the relative low quality/depth of the outer caseback “Hermès” engraving compared to the inner engravings quality/depth
-> the repetition in both the interior and exterior the caseback of engraving/stamping indicating the case material
So here, after just an evening of musing through the problem, is just one known example (and reason) of Rolex using different techniques and standards in duplicating interior/exterior caseback engravings.
If t_swiss has spent more than an evening ....
...........
Now, does this all settle the matter of OP’s claims that this particular “stainless steel” engraving is factory original? Not to the most cynical, and quite fairly so.
But even still, I do not so adamantly exclaim:
And I surely don’t puff:
To wit:
Since I have not from the armchair deduced - for just one example -the entirety of import/export laws (or inconveniences) to which Rolex were subject in the late 1950s/early 1960s, I expect their a wide universe of possible reasons that the quality and reasoning for case markings (inside or out) could be surprising.
Until...
It’s not just the quality of the engraving, it’s also the depth of it compared to a normal engraving... But Rolex case backs tend to be pretty clear of engraving.
This seems to be a point along the same lines as your prior point about the different quality of engraving on the inside of the caseback.
But I’m (1) unaware of any proof that the interior/exterior engravings were done by the same method (or even same manufacturer?) at Rolex, and (2) I thought there were more caseback engravings than might be shrugged off as unlikely?
Additionally, depending on where these watches were cased, imported, and exported, were they not sometimes stamped or engraved on the exterior in connection with laws or conveniences associated with the relevant import/export regime?
I’m here only trying to open any logical space for it, but one scenario could look like this: all interior casebacks of a model year were engraved with machine type X to Y standards, but then an earmarked batch needed to be exported to [location] whose import rules required (or made convenient) an exterior notation of case material - and so that earmarked batch was then engraved by machine type A to B standards.
Here’s a different version of this sort of scenario, involving the French and Hermès, and known legit factory engravings/stamps:
These markings were required by France’s import standards (as to the materials stamp) or by the purchaser Hermès (as to the engraving), and applied by Rolex at factory but not by means of the same methods or standards used to produce other markings on the watch (including the interior caseback marks).
Here’s another such Hermès example, confirmed by both Rolex and Hermès to be original from factory (with respect to the caseback and engravings at least):
compared to the inner caseback of this same watch:
Notice in particular:
-> the relative low quality/depth of the outer caseback “Hermès” engraving compared to the inner engravings quality/depth
-> the repetition in both the interior and exterior the caseback of engraving/stamping indicating the case material
So here, after just an evening of musing through the problem, is just one known example (and reason) of Rolex using different techniques and standards in duplicating interior/exterior caseback engravings.
If t_swiss has spent more than an evening ....
...........
Now, does this all settle the matter of OP’s claims that this particular “stainless steel” engraving is factory original? Not to the most cynical, and quite fairly so.
But even still, I do not so adamantly exclaim:
As "stainless steel" is stamped on the inside of the case back, and in the quality that one would expect, why on earth would Rolex have employed someone to also scratch an additional, terribly executed, and redundant message by hand on the case back?
And I surely don’t puff:
There is zero chance that Rolex was responsible for it.
To wit:
If you can produce a cogent explanation, then I will open my mind to the possibility that it is original.
Since I have not from the armchair deduced - for just one example -the entirety of import/export laws (or inconveniences) to which Rolex were subject in the late 1950s/early 1960s, I expect their a wide universe of possible reasons that the quality and reasoning for case markings (inside or out) could be surprising.
- Posts
- 494
- Likes
- 239
kelev_ra
·@Tony C. This has been an entertaining thread for me to read tonight. I don't know why you are pressing an argument with an expert in vintage Rolex. He has been patient and kind to debate the subject, but seriously... what experience do you have to be refuting the proof already presented? The 1016 in question is one of the coolest and more interesting examples I've seen. It's clearly original with the provenance to support it's originality. I'm all for a spirited debate to challenge opinions and accepted facts and believe that's how we all grow and learn, but your persistence without proof to the contrary is counterproductive.
Again: watch original. Of course. Nice example. Love it.
Engravings: bad. not original.
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
- Posts
- 494
- Likes
- 239
kelev_ra
·you’ve clearly not even read the thread
No worries, I did. Also the "Hermes" engravings do look nothing like the "stainless steel" engravings. And also nothing like the serial or reference numbers. And I am not talking about depth etc.
But, surely, Rolex just said "alright, good enough this time". 🤦
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
cvalue13
·it is a pretty old watch that maybe got 40 different owners over the time.
The watch was owned by something between 5 and 15 owners over the time.
you’ve clearly not even read the thread
No worries, I did.
😲
This piece came from the family of the original owner, Clifton Biggs Leech, the founding director of the United States' first pediatric cardiology program at Johns Hopkins. His family had retained the watch unworn since his death in 1976.
There’s an air of troll about you this evening (or of at least temporarily impaired reading comprehension).
- Posts
- 494
- Likes
- 239
kelev_ra
·😲
There’s an air of troll about you this evening (or of at least temporarily impaired reading comprehension).
You clearly do not have a clue about Vintage Rolex watch business in general. I sold watches without papers that suddenly became "full set" afterwards, I sold watches without knowing anything about the history - that suddenly got offered as first owner watches by auction houses I sold watches I got polished which were sold "unpolished" afterwards.
And I am sure a lot of people here could add similar stories.
But - surely - you are right. 👍😉
