Community Stories

Vintage Submariner Lume

shaun hk
Posts
1,433
Likes
1,579
I feel like a bit of noob asking this but better to look silly than be silly!
Can it be assumed that if a dial glows like this it must be a re-lume? I would have assumed so, especially looking at the seconds hand but would appreciate comments from those who know for sure.
Thanks for your help
shaun
D28E8D5C-7EAF-4ABC-B3B6-079F40F5323A.jpeg 7CF59140-B240-44F8-8227-C6A2C410E0E5.png
 
PaulC77
Posts
326
Likes
1,574
From the plain light shot, it looks like a relume for me. The lume is too uneven and indented for an original with that level of glow
 
Dan S
Posts
24,240
Likes
53,984
Google rolex zinc sulfide to find out how 5513 MF lume should respond during and after UV excitation. The insert is not correct as you probably know.
 
shaun hk
Posts
1,433
Likes
1,579
Dan S Dan S
Google rolex zinc sulfide to find out how 5513 MF lume should respond during and after UV excitation. The insert is not correct as you probably know.
Thanks for your suggestion,
I have just found one of your previous posts where you mention uniformity among all hands, another cause for concern is the smudging around the 6 marker. Therefore I have come to the conclusion it is most likely a relume as the correct examples did not seem to show this. And I could have accepted the non period correct insert but the dial less so.
 
Dan S
Posts
24,240
Likes
53,984
I agree that the sweep hand is re-lumed, but I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the dial based on those photos. If the lume dies off immediately when the UV source is turned off, it's about what I would expect. And the domed/puffy shape of the lume is also typical for MF dials. The missing insert definitely affects value if you decide to make an offer. A proper long-5 isn't easy to find and would cost more than $2k USD.
 
perenowell
Posts
639
Likes
1,217
Dan S Dan S
I agree that the sweep hand is re-lumed, but I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the dial based on those photos. If the lume dies off immediately when the UV source is turned off, it's about what I would expect. And the domed/puffy shape of the lume is also typical for MF dials. The missing insert definitely affects value if you decide to make an offer. A proper long-5 isn't easy to find and would cost more than $2k USD.

I agree. What about the case? It looks really polished
 
shaun hk
Posts
1,433
Likes
1,579
Case is not great, but you get what you pay for and I am looking more for wearable rather than a collector grade piece (which I would love but I am not prepared to spend $15k on). Probably not the smartest rationale and patience may be the better virtue here:

54B8D434-A51E-4AED-A95D-0FD1CEDDA608.jpeg 38110DD3-49DC-48B3-B7D7-1157E460FD47.jpeg
 
shaun hk
Posts
1,433
Likes
1,579
Dan S Dan S
I agree that the sweep hand is re-lumed, but I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the dial based on those photos. If the lume dies off immediately when the UV source is turned off, it's about what I would expect. And the domed/puffy shape of the lume is also typical for MF dials. The missing insert definitely affects value if you decide to make an offer. A proper long-5 isn't easy to find and would cost more than $2k USD.
Thanks again for your insights, they are greatly appreciated, looks like I got it backwards with the lume !
 
Dan S
Posts
24,240
Likes
53,984
The case has been polished, but it's not too bad IMO. The lugs and crown guards are still relatively thick and the lug-holes aren't cratered. I think it's a very wearable 5513 at the right price.
 
M
Posts
513
Likes
956
shaun hk shaun hk
another cause for concern is the smudging around the 6 marker.
The dirt around the 6 marker looks to me like something in the reflection of the crystal.
 
Mark020
Posts
6,498
Likes
10,176
Definitely relume. I would search for another.
 
CajunTiger
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
What year is it?
1967 is an odd year and the lume still fully glows when lit up...but only for about 15 seconds
Edited:
 
Togri v. 2.0
Posts
2,607
Likes
12,105
Neither my 1993 Rolex GMT or my 1985 Submariner glow like that so based on the lume alone I would also say relume for such an old watch
 
CajunTiger
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
Togri v. 2.0 Togri v. 2.0
Neither my 1993 Rolex GMT or my 1985 Submariner glow like that so based on the lume alone I would also say relume for such an old watch

Since the OP's posted watch is a different model than either of yours, this is really not relevant
 
Togri v. 2.0
Posts
2,607
Likes
12,105
CajunTiger CajunTiger
Since the OP's posted watch is a different model than either of yours, this is really not relevant

30BFF900-571A-40DA-BE43-3CD1EDF71BA7.jpeg
 
CajunTiger
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
Point is- its not helpful when people post information thats not relevant or is misleading. Certain models of the 5513 and 1675 made around 1966-1967 still glow today and the uneven look of the lume is very similar to this time period as well.

I see nothing in these photos that would lead me to believe the watch is re-lumed. That being said, I would need more information to be certain. Like, what is the serial number?
 
Dan S
Posts
24,240
Likes
53,984
CajunTiger CajunTiger
Point is- its not helpful when people post information thats not relevant or is misleading. Certain models of the 5513 and 1675 made around 1966-1967 still glow today and the uneven look of the lume is very similar to this time period as well.

I see nothing in these photos that would lead me to believe the watch is re-lumed. That being said, I would need more information to be certain. Like, what is the serial number?

Agreed, this is specialized info, so people shouldn't guess. In particular, a zinc sulfide dial should glow under UV excitation. Here is a photo of my 1966 and 1977 ref 5513 Subs side-by-side under UV excitation.

4vE6VIj.jpg
 
shaun hk
Posts
1,433
Likes
1,579
CajunTiger CajunTiger
Point is- its not helpful when people post information thats not relevant or is misleading. Certain models of the 5513 and 1675 made around 1966-1967 still glow today and the uneven look of the lume is very similar to this time period as well.

I see nothing in these photos that would lead me to believe the watch is re-lumed. That being said, I would need more information to be certain. Like, what is the serial number?
Serial number is 158xxxx so around the 1967 which fits with other examples - I have come to the conclusion that Dan S knows his stuff and it is original.
Thanks to all for chipping in with their comments it was a good discussion
 
CajunTiger
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
not to mention the crystal is original, and its impossible to find the early domed crystals...even those this is an expendable part, it always excites me to see the original still intact.
The lugs on the other hand dont look so hot 😀
 
7 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

vonrozen

Service dials on vintage Submariners and Masters (1960-70s)

vonrozen Rolex Watches
Dan S
Dan S
Posts
4
Views
770
skipcress

What gives with the watch straps for the Connery Rolex ref. 6538 Submariner?

skipcress Open Discussion
JimInOz
JimInOz
Posts
1
Views
91
Stayfrosty

1970 1680 Red Submariner

Stayfrosty Rolex Watches
Dan S
Dan S
Posts
4
Views
235
hansaboy

Rolex Submariner 14060 with Swiss Only dial (update)!

hansaboy Rolex Watches
hansaboy
hansaboy
Posts
1
Views
186
tech396

"To lume or not to Lume". That is the question SM300

tech396 Open Discussion
tech396
tech396
Posts
24
Views
2K
gdupree

Thoughts on Seamaster 2846/2848 Radium Lume

gdupree Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
gdupree
gdupree
Posts
7
Views
511