Hi guys,

Looking at this 5513 from cca 1966 for a project (it got service replacement dial and hands from RSC at a later date), but what baffles me is the "orig rolex design" on the lugs as opposed to the pre-82 proper "registered design" engraving?
The serial matches the caseback and the 1520 movement inside. All looks ok to my eyes except the mysterious "orig rolex"..Could RSC, when they swapped out the vintage dial and hands upon service, also have 'corrected ' any buffed out engravings with the newer nomenclature?
Guys on TRF are leaning towards a replica mid case. What do you guys think?
Not including a pic of the bland face (service dial and hands), as it's irrelevant to the inquiry at hand.
As always, appreciate any feedback.

 

Could it have been some prototype or a slightly different design for some crazy reason that has a story of it's own ?

 

For a 66, between the lugs look awfully sharp and crisp to me. Might be fine, but I don't know

 

haha, no prototypes for me, thank you! )
agree that the case looks good for its age, but my only real puzzle is the 'orig rolex' there...other than RSC doing it upon their grand 'rejuvenation' or some eager beaver watchmaker along the way, i myself am still unsure this is a replica midcase, but then again, i'm certainly no expert.
worst case, my little project needs a new (rather, period proper, vintage original) mid case...

EDIT: one of the TRF guys just pointed out to me one, apparently well known, 'replacement parts' website. their own '5513 case' had the proper 'registered design' lugs engraving! LOL also, their 'caseback' inscription was nothing like this one here, etc...i'm still leaning against a replica midcase here but, if it somehow in the end it turns out that way, will just prolong my little project here one step of the way. that's life!

 

There have been many different...erhm... "replica" designs iterated over the years. The style of one wouldn't necessarily put me at ease or be cause for concern. But it's an interesting problem.

I'd focus on both the subtle typographic cues of the numbers in the engraving – do these match anything Rolex was known to have done, like, ever? The sloped-backs of the 5's and the pronounced bottom curvature of the 3 in 5513 are standing out to me, but I'd need to study it more.

I'd also look for signs it was done by hand ...so wobble marks or marks from where the engraving tool was picked up, general lack of uniformity would I think be considered a good sign... these were obviously not laser engraved . break out your 10x.

The grain of the case metal between the lugs is also distinctive, I'd look at that some more.

Good luck with the project.

 

I read through the thread again, and maybe I missed it, but you did consider that this could be a later period service case?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/207593/thread/1232379695/"Orig Rolex Design" vs "Registered Design"

Replica seems unlikely to me based on the little I've seen ...but also (unfortunately) the little I know.

 

@OmegaBear
If it's true that this circa 1966 Ref. 5513 went to an RSC in the not too distant past wherein the dial and hands were replaced, then it's possible that they also worked on the original case, morphing it into its present state. It certainly looks off, but it may be real.

 

Well... maybe you're overthinking it. Couldn't it just be a replacement/service case from the 70's or 80's? I don't think anyone would have bothered to freelance some ideas for a new inscription like this at an RSC. Sorry if you already mentioned it, but how long ago were the hands replaced?

 

Don't service cases have special serial numbers to denote an RSC service case?

 

Good question.

 

Sounds as if this is worth a query at TRF or VRM.

 

This is not a service case as they are thought to be in the 4.4M range. Also, this is not a replica.

 

Gotcha...is it just perfectly preserved example between the lugs? I never really paid attention to the wording on my cases

 

Some case replacements were actually engraved with the "old serial numbers" and would also be found to have the "ORIG ROLEX DESIGN" inscription.
That would be the only explanation to the OPs watch, other than a counterfeited case, of course.
As always, the Rolex documentation of this type of replacement would be a plus!

 

+1
On not being a service case or a replica.

 

The engraving of a 2.0m serial 5513 I had years ago certainly had ORIG inscribed and it was verified by RSC in Melbourne.

As to the case in question you may be able to study the fonts through a Google search and check any similarities. I can add a 1.4m case is in the meters first dial range, possibly on the cusp of gilt.

 

First, tyvm all on the feedback!
Much better, deeper and more nuanced than the one I got at TRF.
Consensus so far is, and my longtime watchmaker and friend, sam kalter here in philly, who knows a thing or two about rolex, agrees on is: service replacement midcase, most likely from late 80s.
I personally never really thought it was a replica (the dirt, grime and pitting around the lugs-no 'replica' should logically ever have that), was just curious as to the explanation on the 'orig rolex design '-and there it is, in all likelihood. Every day you learn something new.

Edit: I'm totally ok with a service midcase. Just want the original, period proper, vintage dial and hands. As very accurately pointed out above, the serial straddles the gilt and the matte, so that presents a sweet dilemma. What do you guys think-gilt or matte? Maybe a topic for another thread?

 

I saw your post on TRF, the case never looked like a replica to me, so that's a plausible explanation. I'd personally go with a matte and call it a day, I wouldn't "sacrifice" a Gilt on a case that's not period correct.

Best,

Alex

 

How about...both? And play 5513/2 'dressup'?

 

LOL - that would drive me nuts!