lol....I give up. Anyway, the watch is awesome, that's for sure.

 

I really would evaluate them as equals. If the engraving looked a little more competent, I might be inclined to prefer it, given @tomvox1 ’s insight.

Am I the only one who likes ‘interesting’ serial numbers?

 

Thanks @tomvox1 - a breath of fresh air.

Re: stainless steel. I agree that the engraving may also have come from a Rolex agent along the Switzerland to USA supply chain prior to sale. It does look to have the same Rolex pantograph-etched appearance on it than the other engravings of that era though. Would be great to know if the 6542 and 5508 (that I also had a bitch of a time trying to find and am glad @mbeast linked to it) at Phillips had ROW movements, that'd help narrow that part of it down. The 5508 has unmarked endlinks, which makes me think C&I (which would fit), but the fit looks more 7206 from the front so hard to say. The 6542 is on a Swiss rivet but as that isn't NOS it may have been switched at some point. I'll ask my friends at Phillips if they can confirm ROW movements on those. Wouldn't answer the question as to where it was done but at least for which market.

Someone asked for more pictures and I've been trying, its faint enough that I cannot get it all to show up at the same time and under a loupe I can't have in all in focus at once (the "steel" is especially tough). I don't have a macro/DSLR set up to do stacking and such so this is about as good as I can provide.



Re: engravings between the lugs - the main argument I'd make against a substantial amount of them being reengraved (and by that I think you meant the 'doubled' look that many have, not that a reegraving would mean complete polishing off and reetching - but let me know if you mean the latter) would be that the sloppy reengravings all look sloppily done in the same way. If that the case for watches with a bunch of service parts from XX to XX years from Y country, then I might agree, but these seem to come up on watches without a 'need' for reengraving fro the visibility standpoint and don't seem to be coming from just one RSC, for instance, like Bexley bevels or something. Additionally, unless it was a complete polish/reetch, then the ones with missing parts of letters (like the top right portion of the S in design on mine) would likely have at least 1 engraving run that completed that letter. I would be surprised if they shaved down entire sidewalls of the case for a reengraving though since that'd have the potential to compromise case integrity.

Re: the lume -- when I send the watch in for service I plan to have them measure the hand emissions separately from the dial as a surrogate measure of the 3/6/9, since those seem to be the same. I am not interested to the point of having someone try to scrape 60 year old lume off to do a chemical analysis though (not sure who I could find to do that safely without a high risk of damaging the dial/hands). It's been a long enough thread that I forget what I said at the beginning about the exact chemical make up of the lume but more likely that its a mixture of beta emitters than the 226. I've been send a few videos of 1016s with the opposite pattern (3/6/9 fades much quicker than the rest) on an ! dial, but I haven't asked for permission to post those yet.

 

I'm with you on this. I wouldn't go out of my way to request an interesting/meaningful (to me) serial number but I like it when things line up by chance. The watch I got for my wife for her 43rd birthday has a serial that ends in 43. We both thought that was pretty cool (naturally the watch is pretty cool too ).

 

Not trying to divert the thread subject and just brought it up to support the condition of the 1016 at hand, but it's an interesting theoretical dilemma since no two are identical. In this case it has a history from original owner and that has value to me compared to one in comparable condition and untraceable provenance and passing through potentially many hands. I personally have not seen an example that I would rather own based on complete condition than the one I currently have in my collection.

 

I’ll share one of mine to add further credence to the inconsistencies of engraving by Rolex. The pic isn’t the best, but look at the shapes of the letters on the side of this 1675 gilt from ‘61. Compare it to a few pics above. This inconsistent engraving of even the same letter, such as an “E” was common at that time.

 

Hi, Andrew.
Yes, it is typical of Rolex-looking engraving/style but I've got to believe they were marking these a bit later than initial production (of course, same could be said for the model & serial numbers as no case was "born" with those) and for a specific purpose (i.e. export) and so the pantographing could have been done in Switzerland or in New York, IMHO. Who knows, they may even have entertained a Tudor-like approach to external caseback hallmarks for a short time there for all we know and these were a trial run?

Yes, I mean potentially doubled/traced/touched up for clarity due to end piece wear. But perhaps a certain percentage were so poor/incomplete from the get go they were touched up right off the assembly line? In any event, I don't think there is any evidence of a complete erasure an subsequent revision from scratch. I agree 100% there are some homely between-the-lugs engravings in Rolexland and almost certainly some came from the factory that way. The occasional 3-martini lunch from the engraver perhaps?

Yeah, of course I don't expect you to sacrifice your beautiful dial for a chemical analysis. I'm just saying in a best case scenario that'd be ideal no matter how unlikely. I'm also saying that I don't really put the greatest faith in consumer-grade Geiger readings being measured by scientific amateurs no matter how much credence that "essential" tool has been given re: vintage watch collecting in recent years. IMO, there are too many variables re: radiation readings, individual Geiger capabilities and user error to really make a judgement, especially when we are possibly looking at 4-5 potential radioactive lume compounds in use by Rolex and potentially infinite phosphor combinations. I tend to agree with this long post over at Pursits when it comes to the actual utility of Geigers in watch collecting:
https://www.watchprosite.com/rolex/...-radioactivity-on-a-dial-/732.978163.6840528/

Regardless of all that, I think this is a splendid Explorer and potentially unique in terms of the Iume mix (we can all note that Rolex are doing this sort of variable lume on some of their watches now). And I am 1000 times more interested in that than the engravings, which I think are fine and totally acceptable whatever the specifics of their actual origins!

Good on you for sharing your watch on an open forum, as these are the things that move the knowledge and search for answers forward in ways that shallow experiences like Instagram can never really do.
Enjoy it & all the best,
Tom[/user]

 

Great comments and thanks for linking to the article on Geiger counter use and some of the inherent challenges. My personal view is pre-'60's, I would expect most counters to register some activity directly over the dial of a Rolex from that era and would be suspect if the reading is negligible. We can also closely examine other aspects such as lume texture, tone and gilt print relief in relation to the top dial coat. Once we get to '60, it seems these readings are a bit all over the board due to use of different materials like strontium, on many of the OCC dials. I do agree it's a bit of a blunt instrument, but one of the instruments we can use... along with UV light reaction to detect what should be a typical response of lume on a dial from the '50's and early to mid-'60's, which should be different for each of those periods of time in my personal experience.