Boss' Dad's Daytona

[Reginald37]

So my boss has been telling me about his Dad's Daytona, boss is a watch guy, gen JLC and Zenith and just got his first Pam rep, but not really a Rollie guy. Just sent me these pics. Don' t hate.

Gurus - What is it and what's it worth - $35k ish? Dial looks fantastic to me.

Purchased new: 1969

Movement: manual wind

Case: when the bracelet is removed, 6240 is engraved on the 12 o'clock end and 1298269 is engraved at the 6 o'clock end

[Tribal]

... ah old watch I give you 250$ for this!!!!

... just kidding, nice one and worse a lot of $$$$$!

[PhilFree]

I recently saw one go for $35. This watch looks to be in the same condition. However, the dial for this one is different than the other versions I have seen.

Edited December 19, 2011 by PhilFree

[Guest oliviermenard92200]

Indeed it is a 6240, the same dial is used for 6239

[PhilFree]

Indeed it is a 6240, the same dial is used for 6239

You are correct I just saw one at my watch dealers. He was selling his for $36,600. A gorgeous watch I might add. If I didn't recently put in an order for an ALS I might have been tempted.

[freddy333]

What I can see looks good. Values between $25k-$40k, depending on condition & provenance (original sales receipt, 25-year old family pics showing dad wearing the watch, etc), if any.

[Valty]

- Post edited -

Dial is not correct for the 6240, but it's look very good anyway (it is correct for 6239/41). Why ? I don't know, but I think it put the value of the watch a little down

Pushers seems from service

Crown seems to be 703 (from service too ?)

Bezel seems original in pristine conditions - very impressing !

S/N do not match 1969 at all but 1958-59 - it will be very interesting to know witch movement is used to situate better the production year (72B, 722 or 722-1)

The funny fact that the 6240 production started in 1965

Edit: After some researches, it seems the S/N of many 6240 do not match the production date (on the charts I have)

I will be interested to learn more about the 6240 S/N if anybody have informations about that...

R.

[freddy333]

Valty - Good sighting on the dial/pusher mismatch. That dial did not come in an Oyster case (with screw pushers), so the watch is, at least, a franken. With such a crappy pic, I should have looked closer & assumed that someone was trying to hide something (like small printing & incorrect pusher style for that vintage).

But I think your late 50s date is off though. I believe the 1st 6240 appeared around 1965 & remained in production until1969.

[Valty]

Valty - Good sighting on the dial/pusher mismatch. That dial did not come in an Oyster case (with screw pushers), so the watch is, at least, a franken. With such a crappy pic, I should have looked closer & assumed that someone was trying to hide something (like small printing & incorrect pusher style for that vintage).

But I think your late 50s date is off though. I believe the 1st 6240 appeared around 1965 & remained in production until1969.

Plus the fact I have mixed the 6240 and the 6241... shame on me

1rst post edited !

About the dial, seems legit to me, but a better picture will be great to see the printings. I have a little doubt on the "Rolex" and "Daytona" printings.

For the S/N, it's a total mystery to me, I just have seen a 47X.XXX S/N for a 6240 ?

The production has been made for 4 years only, so I really doubt it is possible to have this kind of gap between 2 S/N

Papers will be the only frontier between the fact it's a franken, or a mixed watch produced and serviced by Rolex

I know Rolex mixed the back cases & body cases many times, but I don't know if they mixed dials too

If yes, 703 crown might be from service, pushers too

--

Anyways, it do not worth the price of an clearly untouched 6240

I'm sorry for your boss

[Ronin]

Valty - Good sighting on the dial/pusher mismatch. That dial did not come in an Oyster case (with screw pushers), so the watch is, at least, a franken. With such a crappy pic, I should have looked closer & assumed that someone was trying to hide something (like small printing & incorrect pusher style for that vintage).

But I think your late 50s date is off though. I believe the 1st 6240 appeared around 1965 & remained in production until1969.

I have to disagree on this.

There are photo's of that 'style' dial in Rolex brochures from 1966. The 6240 was introduced in 1965. It is therefore highly plausible, that this was one of those transitional situations where they were using up dials they had on hand.

Trying to pin down exact dial's to cases and model years on much of this vintage Rolex stuff is far from a science. All this proves is that once you 'think' you know something about a vintage Rolex model, something comes along and proves the opposite.

[Reginald37]

Dont think they'll be "better pics", I was just curious as to what Daytona we were talking about when my boss mentioned it so he snapped a pic. He's not selling it, he doesn't even have it yet, Dad still does. I imagine anything you experts think is "funky" is a result of service over the years.This is a one owner, very carefuly maintained by a well to do guy watch.

[Tribal]

Serial is for ca.1967 model 6240!

I've seen exact the same watch from a Munich Seller.

Also same three numbers of serial!

So all is legit I think.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Tribal

[freddy333]

Rolex would never install a non-Oyster dial into an Oyster case. It is possible that the owner or some indy watchmaker/modder might, but noone within the Rolex service network would ever do that.

[Valty]

I have to disagree on this.

There are photo's of that 'style' dial in Rolex brochures from 1966. The 6240 was introduced in 1965. It is therefore highly plausible, that this was one of those transitional situations where they were using up dials they had on hand.

Trying to pin down exact dial's to cases and model years on much of this vintage Rolex stuff is far from a science. All this proves is that once you 'think' you know something about a vintage Rolex model, something comes along and proves the opposite.

I cannot agree at 100%,

The introduction of the Oyster in the Daytona's was not minor, and I just don't know why they putted a non-Oyster dial into a 6240.

It does not really make sense, unless the papers says the dial was installed by Rolex

This is... strange... But as the OP said, the boss is not selling the watch. And I don't have $35k to put in anyways

It's just my 2 cents

Serial is for ca.1967 model 6240!

Where have you seen this ?

My charts does not say that

[Tribal]

http://www.chrono24.com/de/rolex/oyster-cosmograph-daytona-ref6240--id1665022.htm

[Ronin]

I cannot agree at 100%,

The introduction of the Oyster in the Daytona's was not minor, and I just don't know why they putted a non-Oyster dial into a 6240.

It does not really make sense, unless the papers says the dial was installed by Rolex

It's just my 2 cents

Understood. I just struggle with hard-fast 'rules' being assigned when it comes to a lot of the vintage stuff. Lets face it, MOST of the reference material we have comes from pre-internet sharing. The printed words of Pergola, Mazziriol, Dossa, Brozek, Skeet and Ural should probably not be taken as gospel, most of the research there comes from a smaller network / pre-internet era. Things are popping up, more and more thanks in part to the internet bringing people closer together.

The thing is, variations exist in practically any manufactured item. We have determined in this thread that 1965 was the intro of the 6240. The 'style' of dial on the Boss's watch was on printed Rolex material dated 1966, and if we take the "serial number project" at face value the watch is circa 1967. I think it is safe to assume, that Rolex ~might~ have been using up Old Stock, had a dial mfg screw up, hell this was still the hand made era where someone could have walked in the store room for dial's and put the wrong box on the assembly line.

As we can see with the highly transitional nature of a 1675, manufacturing did not start/stop flick a switch. I doubt when Rolex switched to the Oyster Daytona a mandate came down indicating a hard-fast rule regarding dial usage. Back then the Daytona was not a valued watch like it today.

My only point is, until Rolex themselves comes out and gives us the real data dump, all we have are "Guidelines" and no hard-fast "Rules" on some of this vintage stuff. Especially during a model year transition.

[Tribal]

Rolex first attempt to release an Oyster Cosmograph with screw down chronograph pushers happened in 1965 with the released of the 6240 , according to Osvaldo Patrizzi, the 6240 was a prototype model, however it lasted 4 years in the Rolex brochure and was replaced by the 6263. The major difference between these two watches was that the 6240 were released with the Rolex caliber 722 while the 6263 were fitted with the newer Rolex caliber 727. Also, the 6240 has a thinner minute hand

In 1965, the first nail button model production, and continued until 1969 production of 722 movement.

This watch is a Rolex mysterious objects in a limited period of time, only a few appear in the directory of the time.

Some theories have been proposed to introduce these screw button:

Seems to be the most conclusive prevent accidental start time function in high-risk situations (diving, there is dust or other aggressive material). The first time, the inscription on the emergence of a dial-up of the 6240 oysters, previously described only in 6238 and pump timer button.

Eligible oysters, ensuring the improvement of water resistance is due to the existence of spiral button and a 7 mm winding up from the 700 Series crown, rather than install a 600 series pump is equipped with six millimeters examples button.

This model can be with the main black Bakelite panel, but it is likely to have the first example Rolex (1965-1967) and the metal panel 6239, as the first standard model Bakelite panel 6241 that remain in production 67 to 70 years are the same in various ways to the 6239, apart from the panel.

Movement contrary to the three models in the second half of the 60 (including 6239) are still on the 722 from Article 72B from its retained the same number of changes per hour – 18000.

Back to 6240, should be borne in mind the example of steel dark dial-up, the earliest, with silver counters, as well as those light-colored with a brown dial counters.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Tribal

[Valty]

Understood. I just struggle with hard-fast 'rules' being assigned when it comes to a lot of the vintage stuff. Lets face it, MOST of the reference material we have comes from pre-internet sharing. The printed words of Pergola, Mazziriol, Dossa, Brozek, Skeet and Ural should probably not be taken as gospel, most of the research there comes from a smaller network / pre-internet era. Things are popping up, more and more thanks in part to the internet bringing people closer together.

The thing is, variations exist in practically any manufactured item. We have determined in this thread that 1965 was the intro of the 6240. The 'style' of dial on the Boss's watch was on printed Rolex material dated 1966, and if we take the "serial number project" at face value the watch is circa 1967. I think it is safe to assume, that Rolex ~might~ have been using up Old Stock, had a dial mfg screw up, hell this was still the hand made era where someone could have walked in the store room for dial's and put the wrong box on the assembly line.

As we can see with the highly transitional nature of a 1675, manufacturing did not start/stop flick a switch. I doubt when Rolex switched to the Oyster Daytona a mandate came down indicating a hard-fast rule regarding dial usage. Back then the Daytona was not a valued watch like it today.

My only point is, until Rolex themselves comes out and gives us the real data dump, all we have are "Guidelines" and no hard-fast "Rules" on some of this vintage stuff. Especially during a model year transition.

I agree the books written by these guys are not "gospel"

It's hard to tell the truth about the origin of a watch with "one" photo,

I just highlighted the point this watch is not "conform" to the standards of Rolex for this Oyster model

Infact, I agree it's totally possible the watch is 100% original, considering this model was not so valued, and it was a transitional period.

It's also possible this dial was replaced in service,

Or by an non-AD Rolex watch maker,

Only papers will and can tell.

But OP said the watch will probably 100% original, so... let's says if the owner wants to sell one day, a quick voyage to Rolex Geneva will be great to guarantee the authenticity of the watch !

http://www.chrono24....--id1665022.htm

Thanks for the link !

It looks like the same dial is used on this watch,

Maybe it's not so uncommon

R.

[alligoat]

Sure is a beautiful watch and I fall into the Ronin/Tribal camp and see nothing wrong with the dial although I will admit that it would be more suited for a 6241, but both watches were produced concurrently. It's ironic that none of these watches were popular in their time!

[Valty]

Oh, and to be honest, I'm happy to see non-Oyster dial on Oyster Daytona are not surprising you so much

I will install soon a 6239/41 dial into my 6263 very soon... so... it's great

[southcoast68]

Hi all

Concerning the non-oyster dial on this watch, let's consider the following;

Even though this watch was purchased brand new in 1969, it may very well have been manufactured in 1965, please refer to following information from Melrose Jewelers website;

Subsequent Models of Rolex Cosmograph "Daytona"

Over the years, Rolex came out with the following new Daytona models, each showing some technological improvements over the previous models in some way or another:

Model 6262 & 6264: In 1965, model 6262 replaced the model 6239, while the model 6464 replaced the model 6241. These models were an improvement over the earlier versions as they utilized a new Valjoux 727 movement.

Model 6240: It was a completely new model, also launched in 1965. Its unique feature was its screw down waterproof pushers making it waterproof to a level of 165 feet. It was also the first Rolex Daytona that had "Oyster" engraved on its dial.

Model 6263 & 6265: Introduced in 1971, model 6263 was an improved version of Model 6262, while model 6265 improved upon model 6264. These improved versions featured the new screw-down waterproof pushers. They were also the first Daytona models to use a new larger Triplock winding crown.

Model 16520/16523/16528: These models include the new Oyster Perpetual Cosmograph Daytona, launched in 1988. While the tachymeter scale present in these models calibrated to the usual 200 units per hour, it was soon thereafter upgraded to 400 units per hour (as can be found in all current Daytona models). The only difference between these models was that while model 16520 was available in stainless steel, model 16523 was available in a combination of stainless steel and yellow gold (two-tone) and model 16528 was available in yellow gold only. These models were powered by caliber 4030 Zenith El Primero movement, which gave them an edge over previous models in terms of performance.

Model 16518: Rolex launched a new Oyster Perpetual Cosmograph Daytona model in 1992, which was made available only in yellow gold. It also featured a leather strap and safety deployment clasp. It was different from the earlier models due to its bezel, which sported small triangles in place of small dots pointing to the individual calibrated numbers.

Model 16519: Introduced in 1997, it was similar to model 16518, the only difference being that it was made of white gold.

This may have been one that went through the system using dials that were being used up from the previous years, in manufacturing, it happens. Much like a 1965 Mustang I used to own which was verified to have many parts on it from the previous year (what some folks call a 1964-1/2), when Ford switched to the full 1965 model year and to a generator charging system, many trim parts from the previous run were used up along the way (like trim, carpeting, door handles, etc.), hence the confusion as well as claims of "its not all original".

Very possible that this Daytona sat in the jewelers store for a few years since Daytonas' of the time were not popular with buyers due to the fact that it had to be hand wound often which put accelerated wear on the crown and tube. This and the added cost made these stick around for a while. From what I have read (in some of the same books that are not considered as gospel), that jewelers were often cooperative in swapping parts to a customers liking to make a sale, explaining why some Daytonas that should have black bezel like this example actually have an all steel bezel. At the end of the sixties, Zenith and Seiko introduced their own self winding chronographs making these older Daytonas sit even longer.

I'm believing that this watch is all original, I am also believing that it was purchased new in 1969. But I also believe that this was an early 6240 that just got the wrong dial at the start, it happens, and its not something somebody would complain about and have changed back at that time when these were just watches that people would wear and enjoy. Remember, contrary to what you read in some books, Rolex watches are not "perfect in every way".

In short, its gorgeous, and I wish it were mine!

Cheers

[Valty]

I'm believing that this watch is all original, I am also believing that it was purchased new in 1969.

When you are buying a Daytona witch seems not to be 100% original, it's all about believing...

But it's a good reading and you are right, it's absolutely possible this one is 100% original.

You know where we are - we (and I) take much attention with the "details", and even if we make mistakes sometimes, it's still interesting to watch about these details to learn more and more about these sexy Daytona's

In short, its gorgeous, and I wish it were mine!

I cannot agree more with you ! Correct dial, or not, this watch is amazing

[southcoast68]

When you are buying a Daytona witch seems not to be 100% original, it's all about believing...

But it's a good reading and you are right, it's absolutely possible this one is 100% original.

You know where we are - we (and I) take much attention with the "details", and even if we make mistakes sometimes, it's still interesting to watch about these details to learn more and more about these sexy Daytona's

I cannot agree more with you ! Correct dial, or not, this watch is amazing

It is in all the details isn't it, and its the verification of a solid source of information in which we all look for to better determine if something is real or not. After all, this solid verification helps us make better projects for ourselves .

It makes me think of the GMT that Nanuq has which features the "radial mini" dial like the one I have. At one time, folks would have dismissed it as a redial or aftermarket until some real authorities in the subject on the gen websites verified that dial as just another variant of the real deal (see pic below).

Cheers

Edited December 20, 2011 by southcoast68

[freddy333]

Model 6240: It was a completely new model, also launched in 1965. Its unique feature was its screw down waterproof pushers making it waterproof to a level of 165 feet. It was also the first Rolex Daytona that had "Oyster" engraved on its dial.

This may have been one that went through the system using dials that were being used up from the previous years, in manufacturing, it happens.

Oysters are warranted for higher depth ratings than non-Oysters & for that reason Rolex would never install a non-Oyster dial into an Oyster case. There are many exceptions to the rules in vintage Rolex world, but this is not 1 of them. Again, not to say that someone else did not swap dials, but, like I said, this watch, as pictured in the OP, would meet the definition of a frankenwatch.

[Ronin]

Oysters are warranted for higher depth ratings than non-Oysters & for that reason Rolex would never install a non-Oyster dial into an Oyster case. There are many exceptions to the rules in vintage Rolex world, but this is not 1 of them. Again, not to say that someone else did not swap dials, but, like I said, this watch, as pictured in the OP, would meet the definition of a frankenwatch.

No offense, but unless you are/were a Rolex employee with implicit knowledge of the assembly line and corporate policies when these watches were rolling off the line-- Saying "Rolex would never ____________ " is a bit reaching.

It would be acceptable to say "Based on the current body of knowledge, that is non-Oyster dial in an Oyster case. Barring factory fsckups, it could be considered a franken by today's standards."

Again, no offense, and I hate to split hairs...