- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
cvalue13
·
Moving on...
Early Explorer 1016, with a Twist
Moving on...
- Posts
- 254
- Likes
- 573
mbeast
·Very nice watch indeed. Absolutely no doubt the engraving is original. See below for an almost NOS 5508 with the same engraving. I don't think the caseback engraving is any worse than lots of 'registered design' engravings between the lugs - the quality of those engravings is highly variable. Rolex just didn't care back in those days - watches were a tool to be used; they had no idea that people would be analysing parts in meticulous detail with macro photography 60 years later. Though I get the feeling some are just arguing for the sake of arguing...
https://www.phillips.com/detail/rolex/CH080119/213
https://www.phillips.com/detail/rolex/CH080119/213
- Posts
- 8,098
- Likes
- 28,535
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberVery nice watch indeed. Absolutely no doubt the engraving is original. See below for an almost NOS 5508 with the same engraving. I don't think the caseback engraving is any worse than lots of 'registered design' engravings between the lugs - the quality of those engravings is highly variable. Rolex just didn't care back in those days - watches were a tool to be used; they had no idea that people would be analysing parts in meticulous detail with macro photography 60 years later.
I appreciate this link to the Phillips watch, as it is very valuable to see an example in such fine condition. However, while it is definitely supportive of the broad claim that there were engravings of dubious quality on some Rolex models, it is certainly not "the same" as that of the subject watch. Comparing the two, the quality of the letters on the OP's watch is noticeably worse.
As to your conclusion, the very same thing could be said of every single Swiss manufacturer that was active in the early/mid-20th century, but that obviously didn't stop any of them from employing good quality controls. If such an attitude were to have been directly correlated with such jarringly dissonant quality, we would also see it appear in other major manufacturers' watches, yet we don't. So this really does seem to be anomalous, though I'm open to being introduced to analogous examples, if anyone can provide them.
Edited:
- Posts
- 8,098
- Likes
- 28,535
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberIt'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.
I never suggested that the watch wasn't original, so that's a straw man. Any my persistence has been underpinned by specific arguments, so why not attempt to challenge them, rather than wave them off solely because you deem someone else to be an expert?
- Posts
- 8,098
- Likes
- 28,535
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberPoint 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?
The Phillips example linked above is a big step forward, because of the condition of the watch. It doesn't answer all of the questions about the subject watch, but does appear to confirm that, for some very odd reason, Rolex chose to use an inferior technique to engrave "Stainless Steel" on the case backs of some watches.
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?
I mean both, in that if such a watch were to be sent to Rolex for authentication, I see no reason why they would not be able to also verify the various markings.
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.
No, but but it does infuriate me to imagine that a major Swiss manufacturer might have allowed such "factory" work to pass inspection! 😁
- Posts
- 254
- Likes
- 573
mbeast
·I think the difference between the OP's watch and the Phillips example is simply down of the varying quality of Rolex engravings back in those days.
Look at this between the lugs engraving for example, it's awful but it's original. Its more jarring to see such scruffy work on the outer surfaces of a watch I suppose, but it's completely in keeping with Rolex 'quality' of the time. Have to remember these are all macros as well, which accentuates the effect.
Look at this between the lugs engraving for example, it's awful but it's original. Its more jarring to see such scruffy work on the outer surfaces of a watch I suppose, but it's completely in keeping with Rolex 'quality' of the time. Have to remember these are all macros as well, which accentuates the effect.
- Posts
- 8,098
- Likes
- 28,535
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberYour 6452 example led me to this one, coincidentally sold through Phillips:
https://www.phillips.com/detail/rolex/CH080217/248
What is interesting is not only the "REGISTERED DESIGN" engraving, but also the "STAINLESS STEEL" on the case back, as the latter is of far better quality. So we see a sharp dissonance on the very same watch! Truly bizarre, though yes, I'm having a much easier time imagining that Rolex did have shockingly low standards in its quality control, at least as they related to these inscriptions.
Looking at some other 6452, I see some with far better engravings between the lugs, as well.
Among the other questions that this topic begs is: How is it possible that many other manufacturers, including small, and frankly inconsequential ones, were having case backs stamped 10, 15, and 20 years earlier, and with vastly superior results, yet Rolex chose to have some of theirs done around 1960, using inferior methods, and with such incredibly poor results?
https://www.phillips.com/detail/rolex/CH080217/248
What is interesting is not only the "REGISTERED DESIGN" engraving, but also the "STAINLESS STEEL" on the case back, as the latter is of far better quality. So we see a sharp dissonance on the very same watch! Truly bizarre, though yes, I'm having a much easier time imagining that Rolex did have shockingly low standards in its quality control, at least as they related to these inscriptions.
Looking at some other 6452, I see some with far better engravings between the lugs, as well.
Among the other questions that this topic begs is: How is it possible that many other manufacturers, including small, and frankly inconsequential ones, were having case backs stamped 10, 15, and 20 years earlier, and with vastly superior results, yet Rolex chose to have some of theirs done around 1960, using inferior methods, and with such incredibly poor results?
Edited:
- Posts
- 963
- Likes
- 1,251
- Posts
- 603
- Likes
- 2,567
t_swiss_t
·Here are shots between the lugs, minus the last few digits of the serial, and a side by side between the Phillips 5508 and this one. Hard to capture the whole text at once due to reflections. (Also, that’s not pitting between the lugs, just old DNA I have yet to clean off on the surface of the steel.)
Thanks to those who brought up the other examples. I cannot answer why Rolex chose to engrave some examples in this pattern or quality. Neither can anyone else. It is shockingly easy to find examples of how bad the engraving QC is, which is evidenced by the number of examples of it that have been found via a simple google search, so I’ll stop beating that dead horse (if someone isn’t convinced by now, I’m not going to try and sway you anymore).
Odd how similar those fonts look. But since they have small differences that are less varied than the differences in quality between the serial/model engravings, it must be because Rolex didn’t do it. Also funny to call the engraving quality on my example “noticeably worse,” despite the one from Phillips completely missing arm on the N in stainless. Rolex, of course, could never have done something so poor.
Please dissect away and confirm whatever conclusions you’d like to come to.
Thanks to those who brought up the other examples. I cannot answer why Rolex chose to engrave some examples in this pattern or quality. Neither can anyone else. It is shockingly easy to find examples of how bad the engraving QC is, which is evidenced by the number of examples of it that have been found via a simple google search, so I’ll stop beating that dead horse (if someone isn’t convinced by now, I’m not going to try and sway you anymore).
Odd how similar those fonts look. But since they have small differences that are less varied than the differences in quality between the serial/model engravings, it must be because Rolex didn’t do it. Also funny to call the engraving quality on my example “noticeably worse,” despite the one from Phillips completely missing arm on the N in stainless. Rolex, of course, could never have done something so poor.
Please dissect away and confirm whatever conclusions you’d like to come to.
- Posts
- 8,098
- Likes
- 28,535
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberBut since they have small differences that are less varied than the differences in quality between the serial/model engravings, it must be because Rolex didn’t do it.
That's a straw man. I was noting the variance in quality, and did not present the conclusion that you suggest.
Also funny to call the engraving quality on my example “noticeably worse,” despite the one from Phillips completely missing arm on the N in stainless.
Funny? Not really, if you focus on the most obvious problem. What should be the simplest task to perform when inscribing letters by hand? I would say the straight lines. Look at the straight lines on the Phillips example, and contrast them with the L on your watch:
As for the missing line on the "N", it begs even more questions.
- Posts
- 603
- Likes
- 2,567
t_swiss_t
·As I said, entrenched position despite evidence. You'll always be able to find something different between examples and insert skepticism accordingly. It's the easiest position in the world to defend, though each time evidence is presented, your claims get smaller and more amusing.
- Posts
- 8,098
- Likes
- 28,535
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberYou'll always be able to find something different between examples and insert skepticism accordingly
You're both missing the broader point, and misunderstanding my position. I am not interested in proving that your particular watch is not original in every way. I am, however, interested in learning more about what appears to be a very real, and broader mystery. At this stage of the discussion, the questions that I am posing that relate to your watch are a part of a larger attempt to unravel that broader mystery.
It's fine that you, and other collectors have accepted that these poor, to extraordinarily poor engravings were original to the watches. But even if I accept that premise, I am interested in why Rolex might have chosen such inferior, outdated methods, and exercised such poor quality control.
I will also add that if Rolex collectors such as yourself are so willing to readily accept terrible quality engravings as being original, it is an open invitation for unscrupulous sellers to re-engrave cases, no matter how poorly, without any fear of being discovered. And that creates a problem for the market, and a minefield for collectors, in my view.
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
cvalue13
·But since they have small differences that are less varied than the differences in quality between the serial/model engravings, it must be because Rolex didn’t do it.
That's a straw man. I was noting the variance in quality, and did not present the conclusion that you suggest.
😒
There is zero chance that Rolex was responsible for it.
......
This is an awfully strange thread. I don’t know why we’re all so eager to be @Tony C. ’s blood pressure medicine.
The thread arch clearly goes:
-> Rolex Expert: cool watch, crap engravings
-> Tony: from my armchair I’m immediately convinced by deduction alone that there is ZERO CHANCE this is Rolex because X, Y, Z and anyone who would believe otherwise is intellectually questionable
-> [evidence mounts RE X, Y. Z]
-> Tony, but it’s a mystery now!
-> Everyone else: Tony, do you think you owe anyone an apology?
- Posts
- 473
- Likes
- 1,187
Wlcutter
·As I said, entrenched position despite evidence. You'll always be able to find something different between examples and insert skepticism accordingly. It's the easiest position in the world to defend, though each time evidence is presented, your claims get smaller and more amusing.
You're both missing the broader point, and misunderstanding my position. I am not interested in proving that your particular watch is not original in every way. I am, however, interested in learning more about what appears to be a very real, and broader mystery. At this stage of the discussion, the questions that I am posing that relate to your watch are a part of a larger attempt to unravel that broader mystery.
It's fine that you, and other collectors have accepted that these poor, to extraordinarily poor engravings were original to the watches. But even if I accept that premise, I am interested in why Rolex might have chosen such inferior, outdated methods, and exercised such poor quality control.
I will also add that if Rolex collectors such as yourself are so willing to readily accept such poor quality as being original, it is an open invitation for unscrupulous sellers to re-engrave cases, no matter how poorly, without any fear of being discovered. And that creates a real problem for the market, and a minefield for collectors, in my view.
I have no skin in this game, and couldn't really care less—congrats, Andrew, on a lovely example of what sure seems compellingly like an original watch.
I'd just note here that, at least for me, OF has been incredible for its open-mindedness and sense of inquiry—literally, the furthering of scholarship, if that's not too hifalutin. The OP was to engage in that.
The larger questions raised about *why* Rolex might have done this (how could one possibly get a satisfying answer to that q, given their reticent silence?), and the weird postulations of certainty regarding what the original watch *must be* is, honestly, just mystifying. I wasn't there, but as the variety of models of Speedmaster disputed like this, too? Were there no-it-must-be-this-way stances taken about, say, Ultraman models, certain hands on certain models, etc? Were there questions about why Omega might've done any of this stuff?
Maybe I'm being naive. I've enjoyed reading about this. I'm amazed, given the amount of details that were once understood as Inarguable which've proven to be much more flexible re watches, that we're not all way more open-minded. Again, maybe that's naive.
- Posts
- 3,389
- Likes
- 8,951
- Posts
- 511
- Likes
- 2,180
- Posts
- 24,264
- Likes
- 54,034
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,018
- Posts
- 3,389
- Likes
- 8,951
