Seeing all of the great SM 300s in the post below got me to thinking about comparing the Omega with a vintage Rolex Submariner. Just anecdotally, it seems like there are a lot more Submariners on the market on a regular basis (particularly 5513s but also 1680s and to a lesser degree 5512s and earlier Submariners). Any thoughts as to how many Submariners were sold in the '50s and '60s, vs. SM 300s? Am I the only one that thinks that decent SM 300s don't really appear on the various watch boards for sale very often? And what about the quality and utility of each as a tool watch? What was the reputation of each brand as a true dive watch back in the day? Just some ramblings and musings. Any thoughts are welcome.
I believe the Submariner was a more rugged design. The Oyster case protects its movement like no other. I cannot say with certainty that there were more Subs manufactured than Seamaster 300, but I would guess so. That, and a high survival rate of Subs explain why you see fewer Omegas. Personally, I would rather have a 5513 (or 5512) than a Seamaster. I suspect here on the Omega Forum, my preference will be in the minority. I just feel the Rolex is more rugged, simpler to repair, higher in demand, and has more investment potential than a Seamaster. Only my opinion, and you know what they say about those
No question the sub was a more rugged design...I think this is evident in the sure amount of high quality subs still out there. This coupled with the high availability of vintage parts makes it much easier to collect and restore a vintage sub vs the SM300. Personally I find the Seamster a better looking watch, if you can find a nice example...but I love both. This is a 5512 that was worn everyday by its original owner for 45+ years...still looks amazing.
I read —likely here on the forum— that Submariners were more expensive even back then, so the Seamasters were more likely to be used for their intended purpose, making it more likely for them to suffer accidents (the early flawed crown didn't help here).
I was told by a very knowledgeable watch guy that if I were to buy a vintage Rolex Sub: Buy a 1680, not a 5513. Just sayin'
Yup. 1680 had a date and the crystal had the magnifier. 5513 had no date. Neither did the 5512, but the 5512 was chronometer-rated (as was the 1680), whereas the 5513 was not rated.
Some time back I read that upon learning that MoD had signed up with Rolex for the new issues, some MoD personnel trashed their SM300s in order to do a swap with the QMs for the milsubs. Don't know how true this is, but it might go towards explaining why milsubs pop up more often than issued SM300s do,
Knowledgable in what way?...the 5512/5513 is far more desirable to a collector. Its a more attractive watch, the date window and cyclops distract from the clean aesthetic.
Believe me I'm still learning, that is after 5 decades. Knowledgeable to be is any one who know more about a specific brand than I do. No doubt you have more Rolex knowledge than me. More desirable is strictly in the eyes of whom-so ever the particular collector may be. My understanding is that the 5512 was the beginning then the 5513 and the most improved of that version was the 1680. Maybe most important is that the 5513 has remained constant or declined a little in value where-as the 1680 has been stable or has increased. However a Red Sub was not included in his recommendation. Maybe one of our more knowledgeable vintage Rolex members will chime in and add their expertise. 'Cause it sure ain't me.
I think it's telling, about collector interest, that the 5513 has its own dedicated website and the 1680 doesn't.
Not sure what you mean about 5513s remaining constant or declining in value. Not that long ago, plenty of nice 5513s could be had in the $2,500-$3,000 range. Those same watches seem to command prices more like $6,000-$7,500 in today's market. SM 300s have also increased in value over the past few years, but not as dramatically. And I am talking about fairly plain vanilla 5513s. The prices for rarer pieces (e.g., underline dials, gilt dials, Bart dials, PCG versions, etc.) are even higher. In my experience, 1680s have actually had a flatter market profile over the past few years.
The 5512 is the most desirable, but hardest to find. The 1680 has increased in value, but the 5512/13 IMO is the more collectable Sub. There are far more variations in the 5513 making collecting them intersting. I have quite a few subs...here is a 5513 that was worn hard by the original owner every day of his life for nearly 50 years...I bought it from his daughter and did a complete restoration. This is a great site on the variations of the 5513 and why IMO its the more desirable collectable: http://www.5513mattedial.com/
Yeah, Whomever told you that was a little crazy, or more likely trying to sell a 1680. You can argue the 5513, but definitely the 5512 is the one to get if you can find a good one. Mine says hello!!
Most specifically a 4 line 70's 5512. the late 3rd or early fourth generation. That is the model I have and is posted above. I don't have it because of him, although it's cool, I have it because it is my birth year watch and who can pass on getting a birth year 5512?
I should add though, it is not the most valuable iteration of the 5512 line. 1st and second gen being more sought after. The 5512 is the first model with crown guards so it is the one where they experimented with different options (Pointed, not pointed etc) Also mine is not guild..etc. Still it is little more valuable every day it passes.
