Rolex Explorer II 16550 - Correct Bezel? Original or Service?

Posts
759
Likes
1,690
Hi. This looks like the correct bezel for a 1985 16550 ......square 0s......but it looks too pristine. Is it correct and is it possible it is original? It is not NIB so it has been worn. Also.....assume any originals w 30 years on them would have lost some or most of the paint. Is that a correct assumption?

Can someone with expertise on such matters comment? Thank you.
 
Posts
68
Likes
218
Hmmm, tough to tell with that single pic. The bezel does seem strangely new...could be a more recent replacement but I'm not sure. How about the bracelet, does it show signs of wear that conflict with the appearance of the bezel?
 
Posts
759
Likes
1,690
Hmmm, tough to tell with that single pic. The bezel does seem strangely new...could be a more recent replacement but I'm not sure. How about the bracelet, does it show signs of wear that conflict with the appearance of the bezel?
Thanks NM. Thanks for helping. I have these too. Not much, but a little more.....

Help? Thanks, Tom
 
Posts
68
Likes
218
Well, the bezel and case look perfectly matched, as if the entire watch has been tucked away for 30 years. Too good to be true? Do you know and/or trust the seller? I would definitely post this inquiry on the other Rolex forums as you'll receive lots of input/help. My 2 cents: If the price is right and you trust the seller I'd pull the trigger on this one.
 
Posts
759
Likes
1,690
Thanks Nobody Move. Great feedback. I really struggle seeing the case quality/polishing issues most of you can see. Much appreciated and will follow your advice........

Tom
 
Posts
5
Likes
1
I have the same watch from 1987, R-16550 and FOR SURE the Bezel has been replaced, see the pic of my original bezel...What is interesting is the cracks that developed on the dial are exactly the same...I would make a case to Rolex that there was a problem with the paint on that series....do you have other pics?
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
Wjat drives my attention aside from the crisp nunerals is the polishing of th edge of the bezel. A 30 yr old bezel would not ( I believe) show such a clean perfect line from brush to polish.

Could it be that it was serviced by Rolex recently? Either way I don't think that is the original untouched bezel. Either it's restored or a replacement. If it is a Rolex replacement then I don't think you should worry much
 
Posts
1,883
Likes
1,552
Looks like a NEW Explorer 42mm bezel. Deff a replacement and not original to the watch.

Look at this picture below

Use the number "2" as a marker when comparing.



The new 42mm to the left has more squared off numbers (similar to yours). However, the one to the right have more of a curve to them (when compared to the one on the right).

This proof I believe shows yours is a new replacement, but not correct for the watch.
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
Which is OK, except for knowing what the he k happen to the original? Was it damaged ( along with the watch) on some significant fall or was it just cosmetically not pleasing.... Or worst option, is it the dial that was replaced
 
Posts
1,883
Likes
1,552
Which is OK, except for knowing what the he k happen to the original? Was it damaged ( along with the watch) on some significant fall or was it just cosmetically not pleasing.... Or worst option, is it the dial that was replaced

Dial looks original due to the "spider" cracking on the dial, which is period correct for that dial. But I do agree with why the need to be replaced? Most likely a cosmetic reason but you never know.
 
Posts
1,883
Likes
1,552
Any thoughts on the "Spider" cracking on the dial?

Very period correct for a 80s Explorer 2. Thats actually a selling point on the watch to certain collectors.
 
Posts
5
Likes
1
What about the bezel - mine as you can see has been around the world a couple of times and taken a few licks.
 
Posts
1,883
Likes
1,552
What about the bezel - mine as you can see has been around the world a couple of times and taken a few licks.

yours looks original, look at the second loop of the "2" on yours vs his.

Yours could have been polished or just worn or the last owner had some missing and just decided to take the rest off.
 
Posts
5
Likes
1
I was asking what would you recommend I do with the Bezel...I am the original owner and the numbers came off over time and in salt water. I want to restore it but Rolex will just slap on a new Bezel /Dial/Hands and slap me with a $1500 bill, (I recently checked). Any suggestions that would keep the originality and value without breaking the bank would be appreciated.
 
Posts
1,883
Likes
1,552
I was asking what would you recommend I do with the Bezel...I am the original owner and the numbers came off over time and in salt water. I want to restore it but Rolex will just slap on a new Bezel /Dial/Hands and slap me with a $1500 bill, (I recently checked). Any suggestions that would keep the originality and value without breaking the bank would be appreciated.

dont change the Dial! or hands or bezel!

keep it the way it is or if it really bothers you get a era correct replacement and keep both bezels!
 
Posts
759
Likes
1,690
Hi all. I started this thread over a year ago and have been completely sidetracked by about 15 other (mostly Omega) watches since that post. I love that this thread has been resurrected as I still want (need) one (a spidered bezel is famous and a must for this reference IMO) and have learned a lot reading all the new comments (especially about the 2...thanks Drawarms!)
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
Any thoughts on the "Spider" cracking on the dial?
Yes, find one without it. I am not a fan of spider bezels...or cracked bezels of you want to be less polite