Hello OF,

I ask for the connoisers of Rolex, does this watch looks okay ?
This is the reference 6305. A 1953-1957 model.
I saw same dial configuration for this réf, this is one on C24.

The owner told it has never been repainted (have doubts about it) and the crown is original (i asked for a picture of it too).

The problem are here :
- I think there is a problem with the letters under Rolex.
- The lume doesn't look right at 6 and 9.
- The lume looks very white like new.

It doesnt have the original buckle or strap.

Any idea of a fair price range ?

Thank you for your advices. I am waiting for better pictures

 

I think i found my own answer alone after research :

Now I see the lume difference it looks obvious

I let this topic for an education goal

 

Please keep in mind that for a 60+ year old watch, it is near impossible to find on in perfect original condition. These dials dont exist anymore so most of what you find for sale will have a reworked dial and if you do find an original unmolested unicorn, you will easily pay 5 figures for it. For these old watches, buy them because you love them because perfect ones are as rare as hens teeth.

An original crown would either say Brevet on it or have a + under a crown on it. If it has a - under the crown then it is a service replacement.

 

For my own education about Rolex, this code is just for aftermarket parts then ?

 

I am wondering if it is possible to have index/hands from a different color of the case ?
Like in my example a Gold Rolex/Hands/Indexes and a Steel case ?
I love the gold/black for dial and steel case but i am afraid this is a franken combinaison because I didn't see it often.

 

Not common but there are plenty of Rolex midsize watches with golden hands and dial furniture that came in a stainless steel case. So, that alone shouldn't be a concern. That said, the dial doesn't seem kosher to me though it would be nice to have higher quality pictures to evaluate from.

 

I asked for new pictures without the glass, I will post it

I look at this 1603 too, same configuration other reference black dial/golden Rolex crown, hands indexes and stainless steel case.

It looks good to me with a homogeneous patina of the lumes/hands lume. Just the 3 hour lume not well aligned.

 

In the early 50s a crown usually said Brevet or had a giant + on it prior to the markings seen on the pic you posted.

Originally, yours would have had one of these crowns

 

A few comments here:
-IMO most important 6105/6305 was in 18k with milled bezel--1st rolex selfwind with date; ref 6105 1945-52 came before 6305 >1953
-no care about original strap and buckle
-case is a correct design in steel; 6305 came gold,steel and gold and steel
-for 6305 it would have to be a late serial number for marking "DateJust"-
-agree with offrdmania on crown detail; you might also have a - and for 6105 "super oyster" non screw down
-the dial may or not be real rolex but it is incorrect (and most probably refinished or relumed)-- for 6305 never contained the term "superlative"
just "officially certified" on lower half of dial additionally, the term "Datejust" or "Officially" can be
found in red text and is very attractive
-The watch displayed in the video is very nice

 

Thank you for precisions guys.

What do you think about this one :

Patina lume/hands tritium looks good and the inscription looks normal aging for a black original dial.

Here more shots of the mecanism I asked

 

The seller came back with new pictures of the dial without the glass, it's looks original to me, this is an old black (turn a little grey with the patina).
There is a little a slight bevel next tot he D of the Datejust.

 

Im confused, the first pictures you posted are of a completely different watch. I must have missed where you are looking at a different watch now

 

6305 vs 1603 completely different ?????

 

Yes i am looking a different watch a 1603 now ! I changed the topic name

 

Many collectors will tell you that this dial and handset came originally in a TT or gold 1601. Personally, I couldn't swear one way or the other, and maybe you don't even care since it looks nice and apparently it is the combination you prefer.

 

Actually I care. If I didn't, i did never open a topic to ask advices.
I love this combo but I try to have at least a conform watch reference and I learn a little more for my own education.

 

Dials are very frequently swapped between DJs, and not everyone thinks it's a big deal.

 

I knew after research than gold handsets are always from TT or gold case and this watch was a swap, but i thank it was from a same reference, but i didnt know than the reference 1603 was always in Stainless Steel.
So it's a little problem to me to have a watch from 2 different origins. I am far to be a purist (and obvisously i didnt have the knowledge for) but i think it's a little too much manipulation for me. With this kind of watch i am enable to tell the exact reference, what does the identity of a watch ? Case ? Dial ?
This is why watchmaking is so exciting, the more you learn and the more there still have to learn.

 

Prior to about 10 years ago, you could buy a watch at an AD and have them swap out dials, hands, crowns, bezels all to your liking prior to picking up the watch. Rolex has really put a stop to this but back then it is entirely possible that the work was done to meet the wants of the original buyer.

Its hard to know unless you buy the watch from the original owner and they tell you they had it done.

 

The case will have a reference number between the lugs at 12 o'clock. Most likely with the engine-turned bezel and the 1603 case-back, it will also be a 1603 case.