Community Stories

Is this Cal.564 rotor finish on 168.22 correct?

Nebulosa Cat
Posts
23
Likes
11
Hi Sirs, thanks everyone who help me on before topic

I receive it today.
1766538375741.webp 1766538394195.webp 1766538402313.webp

Every function looks ok on it
(hand winding, quick date setting, time setting...etc)

the glass have little omega -> I think at least original or official parts

but I remember the rotor of Cal.564 should be mirror polish? but this one is looks like sand blast

1766538411210.webp


Thank you to all the kind gentlemen who provided assistance.

Thanks & Best Regard

Nebulosa Cat
 
GuiltyGear
Posts
625
Likes
1,888
If I recall correctly, the rotor design was changed somewhere in the late 60s. Yours has the older variant. The movement serial puts it in circa 69, which may be a bit late for that rotor. I wouldn't sweat about it one bit though, since things aren't that well cut or the watch may have been serviced at some point and the rotor replaced with what was available.

I have the same reference, but in solid gold. Same 564, but with the newer rotor design.

1766545452477.webp
 
Peemacgee
Posts
6,113
Likes
9,453
GuiltyGear GuiltyGear
If I recall correctly, the rotor design was changed somewhere in the late 60s. Yours has the older variant. The movement serial puts it in circa 69, which may be a bit late for that rotor. I wouldn't sweat about it one bit though, since things aren't that well cut or the watch may have been serviced at some point and the rotor replaced with what was available.

I have the same reference, but in solid gold. Same 564, but with the newer rotor design.

1766545452477.webp

The rotor design was changed in the late 60s but (if I read what you say correctly) you have it the wrong way around.

Your watch has the older, more complex, rotor design, whereas the OP’s watch has the newer simpler rotor design.
Both are commensurate with their production age - although there is a thought that the circle on the rotor suggests a replacement part, so both rotors (and bridge ) may have been replaced at service.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...