thewightstuff

i would respectfully disagree on most of the above though as always this is IMHO and id be glad to change my stance upon better info or pics. the crystal, as i can make out from the pics though given the quality this is very much an interpretation, is the same general shape as on both my 5513 and 5512 and not the same as the pile of modern rolex issue crystals ive sitting here. id call this domed and the modern flat though perhaps theres a further third generation ive not seen which would proper qualify for a a superdome designation. ive no doubt ubi that you know your crystals too so im for thinking that we are both looking at the rather poor photo and leaning either side of the divide further more the distortion on the dial as viewed through it is classic non gen crystal traits. any ive seen, including my own two, have required much more deviation from the flat before elongating the markers though perhaps macro on camera has exagerated some how. the dial is for my money, at best suspicious. font and crown on the upper portion make me feel this, colour of the markers is also adding to it. agreed that this may indeed be the case with the movement. i know for sure that theres noone doing a rep rolex movement ......yet so theres no way it can actually be off. the case is so like the "replacements" out there at the moment thats its hard to suggest its not IMHO.. the addition of the 702 set up further adds weight to this. despite the assurances these arent gen as far as i can gather. it would be interesting to see the serial to compare. the dial and hands are all classic parts for this combo too im afraid. exactly the same as all ive seen for tudor, 1665, 5513 and 5517. as said before, ive been seeing these crop up more and more for sale as empty shells and it was only a matter of time before they appeared made into "rolex" watches though for chronos sake i hope this isnt the case. hopefully he will get it and all will be well. i genuinely mean that but i do fear the worst in this case. ive shown it to a few other rolex owning friends without any prewarning, none thought any different even for a moment. i feel almost sure of the fact that most parts (id say all) excluding movement arent genuine and know one source for exactly this stuff right now. ubi you have PM on this!! i dont want to sound all gloomy but for many trying to get onboard for the first time, the world of vintage gens just got a whole lot harder.

sorry for not being clear. it was the size of the spring itself, it looks closer to the edge that other movements ive seen with this non breguet set up incl my 1520 though it could easily be the angle. this is often the problem with using pics for this. subtleties are often missed. the whole movement just smells funny though i cant put my finger on it. show me a case with a rolex cal and im usually just left admiring the mechanics. when i saw this i just went "eeewwwwww" and cant say why. the crown seems to be missing its inside bevelled edge, instead looking straight cut like the 703 though this is meant to be a 702/7020 set up. again though it could easily be the pictures not fully showing but i would say aftermarket copy 702 crown at the very least. the yellow on the dial seems weird with the rolex crown logo and text is definately wrong IMHO. this would lead onto questions ref the hands which although look ok match the dial for colour. how is this so if the dial is wrong? the glass is the correct shape for the older dome tropic. the newer one have a pronounced lip around the edge and a different profile. ive some lying here if anyone wants pics posted up. id say that its non genuine also. the distortion at the edge looks too great in the pictures posted curiously ive been seeing a lot of non gen machined tudor cases and watch kits sans movement appearing recently and a few 5517 and 5513 kits using the same case though im not sure who is manufacturing. the case/cgs are very much tudor sub style rather than rolex (though they are more similar to that of the 14060 thats for sure as is the case itself) the picture posted above shows this clearly and the appearance of these cases would give me concern regarding the possibility of this being frankened using such. i dont want to break forum rules however interested parties could perhaps look at an ever popular auction site for item 290066546896 to see an example of such which is scarily close to this watch and definately not genuine in any way shape or form. im not a betting man but id put money on not much of this being real in the least, if anything at all other than the iffy movement and also on it having been created using a lot such as this. for the buyers sake i sincerely hope this proves to be easily sortable, or even better a case of simply bad photos but id have sprinted away never mind walking.

whether he was scammed or not very much depends on price against the watch IMHO. genuine has several levels to it. while some of it is rolex, theres much about it that gives me a strange feeling too and in that case, unless it was super inexpensive, waiting and buying a more genuine version that was all correct and fitted would be a better bet. does anyone else notice that even the movement itself doesnt seem quite right or inspire confidence. while no one is making rep rolex movement im wondering if theres non gen parts in there giving a flavour of variation somehow. ive seen plenty and see my own two quite a bit and this just stood out as being odd immediately. the spring set up seems unlike others and the engraving doesnt seem to quite right and so while i couldnt see where alternatives could come from, it all would be enough to make me walk away from a personal point of view

couldnt decide if this was said with ones tongue firmly embedded in ones cheek however just incase it wasnt or some reading didnt get this, its my understanding that synthetic sapphire is exactly that. manmade sapphire. the other alternative is natural sapphire which is both rare and expensive. the sapphire used for most watch crystals, and certainly the reps, is factory grown and then machined making it indeed synthetic in the true sense of the word. not naturally occuring. to the best of my knowledge, i dont know of any watches using natural sapphire for the crystal.

absolutely beautiful. id have been disappointed with anything less congrats on a great job and in keeping the character that made it so special in the first place. wait a year and you should be able to retire off of it lol.

that for sure. one has to be very wary with the vintage market and work hard to work out what work has just been done over the years genuinely, what has been done genuinely but in error at some point, what has been done to cover up something and what is downright dishonest. minefield isnt the word. ref my crowns. since the 5513 actually has a 24-702 im one step forward and two back. while the crown tube is the original 7000, being as the 7020 has an extra collar it means ive a sort of franken amalgamation with a 7000/702 combo. to make right id need either a 7020 tube or a 700 crown. the 7020 tube option would be pointless as it would make the whole lot non-original but 70s spec and as such id be far better served adding the current 703/7030 combo. this means i need to put on a 700 crown and would need a second for the mint 7000 tube from the 5512 that RSC replaced with 703/7030. 700 crowns are pretty easy to get used which is a bonus. its the tubes that are impossible.

ubi, are you getting genuine 24-7030 crown tubes for $25 or generic style copies as sold by most watch supply houses? my instinct is generic a that price however since its you one never knows ive found when messing about that many generic versions, while much better than the rep fare and visually identical to the rolex issue often have both shorter threaded portion to screw into the case and also twist off pretty easy leaving me to extract the remainder left in the case. ive never had a gen tube twist off yet and i always install both with a rat tail so the force is concentrated at the the thread and not the head

bill, were you putting these up blind so to speak to try to find out what more was needed on these to get them closer or was it just a bit of fun to test ubi's powers of deduction. i dont really want to start posting if its the latter however if its the former i will gladly give you pointers regarding areas you could consider for improvement. ive looked at a gen 5512 most every day on my wrist for a while now and just added a 5513. it means that reps of the vintage models stand out immediately for me, the small details jump out rather proudly it seems in a way that looking against pics doesnt allow. i often used to wonder how people could tell so quickly when i couldnt spot anything both on modern or vintage but i now realise that with experience of handling them it quickly stores to memory what should be. agreed def ubi. his knowledge is of huge help and as you said, his attitude is even more so. he's a real credit to this board along with The Zigmeister

thanks guys. i cant believe that the white 1680 hasnt picked up more than it has by now you know. it beginning to accelerate now but its so long overdue in my opinion its not real. theres a nice fan base developing for the 1675 too it seems but still overshadowed by the subs and SDs. theres some nice deals to be had around though for the 5513 especially. i got offered a mint 1970 model that blew me away recently but had to pass due to getting this 5513. i had regretted it somewhat but i'm a sucker for character lol.

it may be because its late but im having trouble following this. was TJ wanting people to try to guess what watches he had or to just tell him their thoughts ref the two watches and which if any parts we think are gen,close etc? i think we can safely score off the genuine watches from the list of possibilities anyways. i nice pair of watches thats for sure but no where near passing for the real thing to the anal amongst us im on the fence regarding the crown on the DRSD. theres one pic where it looks like it could be gen but then in the others it doesnt at all. these seem pretty much to be out of the box with the exception of the inserts. DRSD is standard ebay fare, comex is just as it came i'd suspect. if its a trusty time comex then the bezel and crystal ring has been replaced with generic aftermarket versions since these originally have the bent spring holding onto a crystal ring with straight sides. the MBWs bezels id seen were also similar to this so this could suggest a swap here too. i might have been inclinded to say WM for the DRSD but the bezel ring looks too thin

if i was into modern subs id take them into the water without much thought, but id also get them in once a year for a water test too. my love of the vintage models means that im a little more respectful and so keep them away from anything more than a damp cloth to wipe them clean. my 5512 hasnt got the tightest caseback in the world for starters

thx. atleast that opens up an opportunity to replace just this if the wear looks too much when cleaned up. i was looking at a 50 fathoms today that was as worn as this. the wear and its military issue was the attraction to me. i could only imagine the things it had seen and done. safe queens can leave you speechless but also be hugely dull too

thats true for sure. when you see something rare crop up you can bet your life that theres going to be people with serious backing after it and able to spend amounts youd cry over without even thinking twice. just look at the close prices on the latest antiquorium sale to scare you witless.

me either are the markers on the bezel printed directly onto the bezel itself? i cant see how where the insert would join otherwise

ive found that often, the price of parts privately sadly arent that much less than would be found if they were released on the free market (ignoring the ebay factor to drive them up). the only difference is that they can be had...eventually. i do think the growing rep market holds much responsibility. id suggest franken enthusiasts have little bearing as they probably are absorbed in with the gen owners. thousands of people wanting an insert and crystal for every model in their large collection though is a different matter when supplies are restricted. used going for more than RSC new is also very interesting. on the surface it would seem evidence to the rep market being a cause as they have no access to RSC however in addition my feeling is that many gen owners are being turned away by RSC slowly and many more are thinking hard about sending in their watches for fear of loosing their dials and hands. all of this is conspiring collectively to make life uncomfortable it seems.

the bezel was the part that was sticking out for me as being immensely problematic. a gen one will probably cost as much as the watch did itself as i assume it should look visually the same as the 65xx type sub rather than the 55xx going by the rest of the watch. beyond gen i agree that theres no options that would be better than the current one. i for one am not convinced it needs the bezel replaced. it would be nice to see a good clean example of a watch thats been used for what it was intended. id think that it would give it good value, especially when weighed against he headache of addressing it. hopefully a crystal change will allow the dial to shine through better and make everything look somewhat better

boring old movement parts seem to be pretty much ok within the rolex world and the word is that theres plenty around freely to keep movements going for many years. im touching a large portion of wood that this is true. other parts though are going crazy though for sure. cosmetic bits are a preverbial PITA to get now and things are going for crazy money. anything spare is just being sucked up. theres a few immediate reasons that spring to mind why this is the case but to tell the truth, ive no real idea why this is so at all. it seems many are as confused about it as me. all i can say is that there no greater number of gen vintages going around than previously but that the market for the parts has increased significantly. it seems that theres an even greyer market existing thats quite hidden and allows movement of bits to flow amongst the vintage enthusiast. i know ive met a few good people recently and things now appear reasonably readily that would otherwise remain unavailable. your prophecy for $400 580s may not be as far away sadly as it would be hoped. its already over $100 for a good pair and bracelets are soaring upwards while the word mint near anything external causes cash registers to ring the world over

i only know for sure as ive a first issue 5513 thats I/62 and tallies with the official history. had it been a month ago, id have had no idea at all. a new purchase focuses the mind somewhat onto info when your as anal as me id say dial variations are more likely a certainty knowing rolex lol. my info on the 5508 is based entirely on a few pages and a couple ive seen. its hardly more than fleeting to say the least. its a wonder id even heard of a 5508 so that was a bonus in itself. luckily for The Zigmeister, the 1530 is simple to get parts for (says i touching wood). theres tons about and pretty much freely available. cosmetic bits will be a huge problem though id imagine. luckily a new tropic will make a massive difference and a bit of a clean will be all it really needs to shine i think. i just got a stock list update emailed to me yesterday for 1530 cal parts. maybe i'll pass it onto him incase its of any use

who knows indeed. the inner workings of the rolex corp mind is a black hole to all (incl im sure their staff) and often the outer workings are just as bad lol. i get my kicks from how generally ropey their whole outfit was and indeed is in many ways. it makes me proud lol. . i have images of the vintages being created by befuddled guys in brown coats putting it all together in between cups of tea and permanent confusion. i also like to imagine that the different parts are not only enthusiastically embraced when discovered in a drawer and used even though they are 5 or more years out of date but that also often they cant make out what they were doing due to cup rings on the drawings covering vital info (like end link numbers). this would explain away quite nicely all the variety that appears quite paradoxically to the huge brand reliability. not only is it impossible to get a handle on the confusion but just when you think you can imagine how confused the whole thing is, something pops up (like The Zigmeisters 5508) and makes you realise you werent even close. im glad i dont write rolex history books, id go insane. even the official literature is often bunkum. one recent discussion brought out the official books to check a model for details and the official pic, in the official rolex bible was of a totally different watch.

5513 was introduced 1962, 5512 had come in some years earlier in 1958 as posted above. this being 1962 it would be a very late transition with the 5513, the model that directly replaced it. the 5512 being SCOC had run in parallel apologies if it seemed like i was stating that it was definately a wrong watch. it wasnt my intention and id actually gotten quite excited rolex were never that thorough and we all know their love of using parts they come across in the stores. these things usually only come up on timezone and the rather dull discourse over there puts me to sleep sometimes. ive only seen a couple 5508 anywhere and they were late models,had CGs and 200m dials. the mil 5510 had no CGs so its not beyond the realms of possibility by any stretch thats for sure. especially if you say youve seen ones the opposite. its seems like the 5508 is one of those refs where it very much has almost an anything goes policy for much of its life if not all. its a great watch and an even greater find though thats for sure. was it working at all when The Zigmeister got it do you know?

given the fact that they didnt seem to be able to put 5512 casebacks onto 5512 watches and vice versa with the 5513 its no wonder theres all sorts floating about when it comes to end links. the literature and all the rolex scholars state this as being the case theoretically. what actually left on the watches is another matter. i wonder if jewellers got them muddled over the years too. i bet may owners wouldnt notice a 580 being switched with a 585 in error somewhere. the 501b is for the GMT i think isnt it? ironically it seems that people care more about it now than anyone ever did back then 40 years ago. ive seen pics from the 60s wth people even diving in their subs. imagine the herecy

finally the post turned up with my watch in it after a wait that had started to get me sweating. heres a couple of snaps for now. just waiting on my earlier insert for the 5512 to match the original in the 5513 and replace the newer addition. im thinking i may stick the old crown back on too. the 24-703 and tube had been added at a service and i was happy with the increased design qualities of the external gasket but side by side im feeling the older one more.

just about to post this over where appropriate but heres my I/62 5513 with my 67 5512 just to show what was around at the same time.

it should be a great project thats for sure. id personally steer clear of doing too much tidying up on it. its oozing character at the moment and putting on too many new parts save a crystal. further to my post above. this looks really like a turnograph in actual fact, im wondering if it is and someones stuck the submariner and depth on later. the depth should be the same length as the submariner and the colours look off too in the pics. theres also a question regarding why it would be 110m-330ft for a production date of II/62. this had long since been passed with the 220m being the standard for some time. looks like there could be alot of fun finding its history aswell as fixing it up. The Zigmeisterzumba, mechanic by day, detective by night lol pic added from the web.

my info isnt 100% thats for sure but wasnt the 5508 essentialy the 6536 but importantly (in this case) with integrated CGs rather than soldered on ones. i had always been led to believe that the introduction of the 55 designation in 1957 began the standardisation to some degree of the model seeing numbers drop from the dial, solid CGs integral to the case introduced, silver bezel triangle and minute markers to 15 only etc. given that a 1962 date would indicate that this was the very last of these, and in actual fact if accurate this would be an overlap model since the 5513 had appeared I/62 after the earlier 5512 from 1959 it seems really strange that it would have no CGs at all. i know rolex arent the most reliable but it still odd IMHO. just to add into the mix, there is a very rare 5510 military sub from around the late 50s that used the shoulderless case and 1520 cal so its not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that you have something even rarer in a 5508 without shoulders too. a sort of civilian 5510....or even more scary, a proto 5510 i wonder if perhaps its an earlier model with a later movement and replaced caseback. its highly possible that rolex could have used this back incorrectly from new given the random distribution of 5512 and 5513 backs or it got introduced at a service at some point years later due to damage to the original. i assume you cant make out much between the lugs. my own subs are almost impossible and are less worn than yours. should be great when its cleaned up (but not too much) and working