Looking for feedback on the condition of this 5513

bryanmanio · Mar 2, 2020

I've been eying a 5513 for quite some time and came across this late 60s model. I just got a photo of the watch with the case open, and I can't tell if this is rust, or dirt behind the case back.

This will be my first vintage piece, so I want to make sure I'm not going to be dealing with something that needs work. Would you have any concerns if you say something like this, or am I mistaken?

Additionally, it was mentioned that the bracelet is a folded link 9315 with a C serial clasp, but when looking up clasp codes here (https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=54362) it says Cs are from 1978. Does this mean that the bracelet isn't original?

WatchCor · Mar 2, 2020

Could you provide more photos? The dial side would be interesting to see.

As far as I know 1520 Cal was a replacement for the earlier 1530. Apparently this phase out happened around early 60s(62-63). As I understand simultaneously they phased out that old style "butterfly" rotor.

I am no expert but I thought and undestood that those butterfly rotor are early '60s and '50s and with a 1530 Cal or earlier.

I personally cannot see any rust on that single photo but alot of grime and dead skin.

To ascertain condition and originality you will need alot more pictures.

The bracelet code if it is for 1978 can be original if the dial side shows a late 70s watch with a '78 serial (~5mil). In that case the butterfly rotor is an obvious later addition.

TL;DR
More pics? Case serial?

bryanmanio · Mar 2, 2020

@WatchCor Sure thing, see attached.

Case serial is a 1,9XX

WatchCor · Mar 2, 2020

Ok, thx

So the case is imo in good condition, might be slightly polished but still thick lugs. Bezel insert is imo original and attractive and by the case serial it is a late '60s 5513.

So the bracelet is a later addition (no biggie imo). The dial to my eyes seems to be a correct non-seriff matte version consistent with the serial number range. I'd say that the hands are original(flat) and correct. I don't have enough experience to judge the originilaty the lume.

The only thing that sticks out to my eyes is that older rotor that were phased out in the early '60s. Coincidentally there seems to be possibly some "rotor-rub" marks inside the caseback.

O yeah, and the movement needs a service and a cleaning.

Hopefully someone with a bit more experience and knowledge with this model can chime in too.

Chris75 · Mar 2, 2020

It's a franken-watch.

Dial is later for the serial number, as you should have a "meter first" dial.

Bracelet is wrong and it comes from Tudor production (Rolex ended production of 9315 in 1975).

Movement and insert are also probably not period correct.

I suggest you to run from this one, and to check in this forum, there are many reputable sellers!

WatchCor · Mar 2, 2020

Chris75
It's a franken-watch.

Dial is later for the serial number, as you should have a "meter first" dial.

Bracelet is wrong and it comes from Tudor production (Rolex ended production of 9315 in 1975).

Movement and insert are also probably not period correct.

I suggest you to run from this one, and to check in this forum, there are many reputable sellers!

That explains the weird rotor then. Sry I was wrong about the rest, I thought 1,9 mil would acceptable range for a feet first dial. :whipped:

😟

What is the giveaway for insert being wrong ? Whatabout the caliber, isn't a 1520 correct for late '60s 5513? Looking to learn.

Thx

Dan S · Mar 2, 2020

1.9M would generally be meters-first. Insert looks plausibly ok to me. However, the pearl looks newer, and also wonky as if someone damaged it while installing it, or got sloppy with adhesive.

Chris75 · Mar 2, 2020

Dial is later (feet first and not meter first).

Bracelet is 10 years later and made only for Tudor watches.

Insert is later (can't see from the pictures but it doesn't look like a 'Long 5').

Movement is earlier.

This isn't simply a Franken watch: this is the epitome of a Franken watch.

Chris75 · Mar 2, 2020

pseikotick
Every watch with a couple of service parts is not a "Franken" watch. We should be much more careful with this pejorative term. Bracelet is wrong? Cmon. That is not criteria for a watch that's been pieced together. I wish I had more knowledge here, but I have seen quite enough Speedmasters disparaged by people who were much too quick to label a piece as a Franken.

By this usage, if I have a 60s Speedmaster with a modern service bezel and bracelet, it's a Franken? Incorrect. It's a watch that Omega service updated according to their guidelines. New hands and even dials would be part of that same service. We must all keep in mind that this mania surrounding non-original parts is fairly recent and represents just the current school of thought. Omega and Rolex have been swapping out parts that are worn or otherwise damaged for many decades. Is it wrong to those of us who like patina? Yes. Is it wrong in general? No.

So put down your torches and pitchforks long enough to find out if that's the Frankenstein monster on the hill you're about to assault or maybe just the good Dr. wearing a mask and playing in the lightning.

You better burn this Frankenstein (watch) or you are going to burn all the money you are paying for it: not a single part is period correct or coherent with the others.

airansun · Mar 2, 2020

Regardless of adjectives, it’s true that this watch is a pastiche of mismatched bits. You can do much better.

Chris75 · Mar 2, 2020

WatchCor
That explains the weird rotor then. Sry I was wrong about the rest, I thought 1,9 mil would acceptable range for a feet first dial.😟

What is the giveaway for insert being wrong ? Whatabout the caliber, isn't a 1520 correct for late '60s 5513? Looking to learn.

Thx

That rotor you find in in early 60's.

bryanmanio · Mar 2, 2020

Thanks for all the insight, in staying away from this one.

mzinski · Mar 2, 2020

bryanmanio
Thanks for all the insight, in staying away from this one.

Out of curiosity, how was this watch presented to you (all original, service parts, etc) and what was the asking price?
If the seller disclosed it’s been pieced together and/or the price reflects this I wouldn’t have any issue - if that’s what I wanted. It’s a matter of what are you looking for - all original, condition, provenance, services, untouched, etc - and is the seller honest in their disclosure.

bryanmanio · Mar 2, 2020

@mzinski I found it online through a reputable seller on the Rolex forums, for $12,950. Nothing was mentioned as unoriginal, but these were specs:

Case appears with original bevels and remain thick throughout
Dial: Non-Serif Matte Dial
Insert: Fat Font Black Bezel
Hands: Original matching hands
Case: Excellent condition case that may or may not have been lightly polished in the past. Original bevels appear present
Bracelet: 9315 bracelet with 380 end links and c serial double Clasp.

Chris75 · Mar 2, 2020

Not so reputable unfortunately!

Dial should have been described as not period correct (meter first), while mentioning dial is non- serif is half of the truth.

Insert should have been described as not period correct (Long 5), while mentioning is fat font is half of the truth.

Bracelet isn't period correct, from Tudor watches (and the 380 endings look odd), and there is no word about that either.

bryanmanio · Mar 2, 2020

Totally, it definitely feels a bit dirty, and I'm glad I posted it here. I turned it down and he said he had another one that just came up, maybe I'll post that when I get pictures if something seems off.

Speaking of which, I can find most of these details when searching Google except for the "Long 5" dial. What is that exactly? I'm surprised it's not mentioned on http://5513mattedial.com/ or on the Hodinkee reference guide.

Dan S · Mar 2, 2020

bryanmanio
@mzinski I found it online through a reputable seller on the Rolex forums, for $12,950. Nothing was mentioned as unoriginal, but these were specs:

Case appears with original bevels and remain thick throughout
Dial: Non-Serif Matte Dial
Insert: Fat Font Black Bezel
Hands: Original matching hands
Case: Excellent condition case that may or may not have been lightly polished in the past. Original bevels appear present
Bracelet: 9315 bracelet with 380 end links and c serial double Clasp.

Very careful listing with a lot left unsaid.

Dan S · Mar 2, 2020

bryanmanio
Totally, it definitely feels a bit dirty, and I'm glad I posted it here. I turned it down and he said he had another one that just came up, maybe I'll post that when I get pictures if something seems off.

Speaking of which, I can find most of these details when searching Google except for the "Long 5" dial. What is that exactly? I'm surprised it's not mentioned on http://5513mattedial.com/ or on the Hodinkee reference guide.

Not the dial, the bezel insert. The opening in the bottom of the "5" in "50" is elongated, not squarish. Also, the "0" in the "50" is very long, and the ends aren't squared off as much. Just google it.

Looking for feedback on the condition of this 5513

bryanmanio

WatchCor

bryanmanio

WatchCor

Chris75

WatchCor

Dan S

Chris75

Chris75

airansun

Chris75

bryanmanio

mzinski

bryanmanio

Chris75

bryanmanio

Dan S

Dan S

Similar threads

Opinion on the condition of this omega art deco

Mystery pins in 1098 bracelet - Looking for feedback

Looking for feedback on a vintage omega seamaster

Looking for feedback on this Seamaster

Opinions on the condition of 166.0167 Seamaster

Speedmaster 145.012, Cal. 321. Any Inputs on the condition of the watch?