So I have a few vintage watches that have the semi quickset date, by which I mean you can turn the time backwards to 9 and then forwards to 3 back and forth to advance the date wheel. My question is whether this is safe to do. I know that the original manuals sometimes recommend it, but is there potential for damage to the movement in these older watches?

 

Not if they are meant to be set that way. Why would you think the manual would tell you to do something to damage the watch.

 

I don't know. My watchmaker taught me that trick. He would not have shown me if it was going to do any damage. Setting the date between 9pm and 1am is the only potential way to damage while setting as far as I know. I just read a post from another forum recommending going 9 to 6, but I have been doing 9 to 1 for years without issue.

 

It’s fine...

 

What about excessive wear to the cannon pinion?

 

Well, the only other option (besides letting the watch sit until the date catches up) is to forward the hands through 24 hours for each day the date is off - that's what I have to do with my vintage Sub with the Cal. 1575 - it's a terrible design. That will cause much more "wear" to the cannon pinion than cycling back to 9 pm, and then back past midnight.

 

I've never had any problems with poljot and vostok. Neither with omega and rolex. Vintage all of them.

Scary movie with calibres 3185 and 3186 from rolex.

 

The calibre 1575 was for the expendable explorer II and the great gmt master. You have a calibre 1570. I know, they are nearly identical.

 

No, it’s a 1575. Rolex made these with 1570 on the movement, but the 1570 is a no date movement, and date movements end in “5”...

The GMT Master used the 1565, and the Explorer 2 the 1560 (date and no date respectively).

 

Aegler doesn't agree. Neither do I.

On the other hand, do you have any good book references about vintage rolex watches for the american market?

 

I am not surprised...and no I don't have a book, as I don't need one. I have Rolex technical guides for these calibers that show exactly what they are. Here's the front page of the 1565 GMT guide...





Here's the 1570 - you claim this is in my 1680 but it has a date, and clearly the 1570 doesn't have a calendar function:



The 1575 does have a date - this is what is in my 1680 Sub:



And yes, there is a 1575 GMT, but that is not in the watch I own of course:



So regardless of what you believe, the Sub date of the era absolutely used the 1575.

 

Aaaah, a copy of a copy I believe you don't have the aegler's papers.

My question was completely honest. So relax.

 

Just as I expected, you are very fact resistant, and make claims without evidence. I'm not sure there's anything "honest" about anything that you post here...

 

Here's an article about the 1680 that goes into all the details, for those that might be interested...

Rolex 1680 Submariner Ultimate Guide | Bob's Watches (bobswatches.com)

The bit about the movement numbering...

"The Caliber 1575 is essentially identical to the Cal. 1570 inside later models of the ref. 5512, except with an additional calendar module included. One strange anomaly shared by all Caliber 1575 movements is the fact that they are stamped ‘1570’ inside on the rotor bridge. Discrepancies like that sometimes act as a red flag to collectors, but in this case, it is completely legitimate. The components are identical on the two movements, and so Rolex simply produced one part and labeled it with the base caliber number – a practice that would never happen today with Rolex’s ultra-standardized production process."

Seeing "1570" on all the movements of this range can certainly confuse the novice vintage collector, as it has with space cadet. But in all the years I've been involved in watches, collecting and servicing them, I've never ever seen one actually marked 1575, or really anything other than 1570 on this whole family that is based on the 1570.

 

Patience and knowledge, dear archer.

 

Bob's watches. Ay, ay, ay.

 

You can clear this up really easily by showing some proof...but we all know you won't.

 

We all? Sounds familiar to me.

 

Yes, it’s very familiar that you make claims without providing proof. So why not just show it in your next post? I’m quite willing to change my position if proof is presented, so you have nothing to lose by showing it.