Help with a Tudor Ref 7965

Posts

280

Likes

328

VanDamme

·Oct 22, 2015

Hi guys,
Hoping to get your thoughts on this Tudor. The seller notes it as a circa 1959, Ref 7965 Tudor with crenellated bezel. The watch has a diameter of 35mm excluding the crown. The watch also comes with the original box signed by the retailer as well as the outer box.
The entire package appears to be in great condition. The case looks flawless and the lugs (with brushed finish still clearly visible) seem to be untouched unless it was remarkably refinished. The outer caseback is also completely unsigned unlike others I have seen. The seller wants approximately $750. This is the same seller I bought this from... https://omegaforums.net/threads/thoughts-on-this-connie.30473/#post-344363

Any thoughts on the watch or advice on whether to pull the trigger or not? Seller's pictures:

 

Posts

1,433

Likes

1,573

shaun hk

·Oct 22, 2015

I know very little about these, but the price sounds reasonable to me and I like the look of it.

 

Posts

280

Likes

328

VanDamme

·Oct 22, 2015

It does look good, perhaps too good. Others like this I have seen have signed case backs but this may not be absolute. The "sunken" markers are also new to me. I am no expert though so hopefully others are more clued up😀

 

Posts

280

Likes

328

VanDamme

·Oct 22, 2015

Also noticed on another watch that the points of the lugs should perhaps be a bit thicker...

I can't imagine it being too difficult to keep the lugs as sharp as this when polishing it, or is it? This also does not have lug holes on the outside of the lugs

 

Posts

7,225

Likes

24,418

Hijak

·Oct 22, 2015

Now keep in mind I'm no expert on these, but I question the dials originality. Redial? Otherwise looks to be a very nice watch! @adam78 might be able to help out here...

 

Posts

280

Likes

328

VanDamme

·Oct 22, 2015

Thanks for including him, hopefully he comments.

The dial is just so neat. If it is a redial it's a great job. The space the "Y" in Oyster takes up is quite a big and the word "ROTOR" looks slightly wonky. Just my observations, also not an expert in these or any others...😎

 

Posts

280

Likes

328

VanDamme

·Oct 23, 2015

Bee You Em Pee

 

Posts

8,742

Likes

69,419

Darlinboy

·Oct 23, 2015·Pratts! Will I B******S!!!

For me, it is clearly a redial. On this, and similar references, I would expect to see some degradation of the dial, even on a watch that had never been worn . On this particular example, a close inspection reveals irregularities in application of the print and dial finish. I very much doubt the buckle is OEM, a genuine Rolex stainless buckle is closing in on US$200, knock-offs are easy to find on eBay for twenty bucks. And that is clearly not decades-old lume on the hands.

 

Posts

280

Likes

328

VanDamme

·Oct 23, 2015

Thank you for your input👍

 

Posts

3,849

Likes

27,357

adam78

·Oct 23, 2015

I concur with Darlinboy, on all points!

 

Posts

1,818

Likes

7,207

CdnWatchDoc

·Oct 24, 2015

Darlinboy

For me, it is clearly a redial. On this, and similar references, I would expect to see some degradation of the dial, even on a watch that had never been worn . On this particular example, a close inspection reveals irregularities in application of the print and dial finish. I very much doubt the buckle is OEM, a genuine Rolex stainless buckle is closing in on US$200, knock-offs are easy to find on eBay for twenty bucks. And that is clearly not decades-old lume on the hands.

Ditto, this doesn't look the part of an original vintage Tudor. I have a 7966 with a similar bezel, and this is just too "nos" to be original. Personally, I would pass, but I also am a Kyle disciple and like my patina...

 

Posts

280

Likes

328

VanDamme

·Oct 26, 2015

Thank you gentlemen. I have decided to pass as suggested. I value all the input👍