RWG Technical Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Mysterious Rolex Crown – is it real or a rep or something else… I have never claimed to know much about Rolex (or any other brand for that matter) when it comes to parts, styles, what is correct for what vintage etc… It’s not my thing, I feel I can hold my own when it comes to movement questions and repair, but beyond that, I am basically not in the know… I buy used Genuine Rolex crowns on ebay, and most of them are fine… I got these two in a while back, and when I tried to thread them onto a 7mm tube, they fit fine, but would not screw all the way in, and were getting hung up on the o’ring grove on the crown tube. Looking closer, I noticed that the threads on these were filling the complete inner area of the crown, so when the tube was screwed down, the threads were jamming up against the o’ring grove. On the other 7mm crowns I have, they are only threaded from about half way in, the rest is smooth, to allow the oring to seat in the crown… Specifications: 7mm diameter Rolex symbol, with crown and 3 dots Fits the 7mm crown tube Threaded all the way on the inner surface. Then as I looked closer, it “appeared” that the crown was covered in a “foil” or some type of metal…that’s weird, as the other crowns were one piece stainless…what is going on here… While speaking with ubiquitous the other day, I mentioned this to him, and he had never heard of this type of crown, and he suggested I try and remove the metal foil, and see what was underneath… So that is what I did… Now, the way I see it, I have either one of two things here: 1. Genuine – extremely rare crowns…(one which is not so valuable anymore…as you will see…) 2. Replica or aftermarket crowns, not worth anything… If indeed these are genuine, what type of crown tube fits them…anyone know?? Here is what I have, looks good in this view, nothing too unusual… Now, have a look at this view, note the threads on the inside right to the outer edge, and also the metal foil covering the crown… Now if these turn out to be valuable, I will blame Randy for telling me to remove the metal and see what was underneath… he figured the could be 2 dot crowns and worth a lot of money…or not… Here is the metal foil removed… If they do turn out to be valuable, I am hoping that I can put this part back on, and no one will be able to tell the difference…what do you think?? And here is what was under the metal foil, looks green due to rusting, but I think it’s actually stainless…will try and polish it up… So there you have it, I either ruined a historic piece, or not…I find it strange that under the foil is the same crown and dots printed as on the foil…how come for that??? Anyone have any idea on this one??? Thanks for the responses. RG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Wow... Very odd, very strange and very unusual! I was really expecting to see a Twinlock under the 'foil'... That is, one with no dots under the crown! Rather... The crown underneath has the triple dots as well! Very unusual! For the life of me, I cannot understand why they would wrap the metal around the crown like that when the one underneath already has the coronet embossing and is (possibly) stainless. What boggles me even further is the fact that the crown threads extend all the way to the opening; this should not be the case for a Triplock, as it needs to clear the gasket. I will need to inquire with some folks to see what they think. I myself have never seen this type of construction in a crown before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWG Technical Posted November 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Wow... Very odd, very strange and very unusual! I was really expecting to see a Twinlock under the 'foil'... That is, one with no dots under the crown! Rather... The crown underneath has the triple dots as well! Very unusual! For the life of me, I cannot understand why they would wrap the metal around the crown like that when the one underneath already has the coronet embossing and is (possibly) stainless. What boggles me even further is the fact that the crown threads extend all the way to the opening; this should not be the case for a Triplock, as it needs to clear the gasket. I will need to inquire with some folks to see what they think. I myself have never seen this type of construction in a crown before... The strange thing, is that every crown I have gotten from this seller - has been genuine... The one you have on yours Randy (that you told me was a vintage whatever...) is from this seller...so it seems unusual for this fellow to carry replica parts. I can't wait to see what comes of this, someone knows what these are, hopefully we get answers. RG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Hmmmm... I'd like to know what this crown looks like polished up. And more curious to know what those three dots look like once cleaned up and inspected closely. The shape of the crown- The ridges and the fluted bottom all look like Twinlock attributes to me. Perhaps this was a transitional crown of some sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 P.S. I don't think they're fake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
everlast Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 the same story with crown was on my old genuine TT Date Just with plastic crystal, small piece fall from crown . Not a expert opinion,just observation ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 it appears u had a genuine and rare twin lock crown for a sub (looks like the same one on my genuine sub with twin lock tube), these screwed down and didnt have the oring at the bottom and were the ones rolex started with in the beginning and r hard to find on gen. watches cause many were replaced by rolex when the older subs were sent in for servicing, so i think now u may can blame randy, lol im kidding joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Whoah...there's actually a chance these can be genuine? What am I missing? Rolex changes crown versions by putting foil over older crowns? Of repmakers change Rolex crown versions by using poil over genuine pieces? Very interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWG Technical Posted November 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Hmmmm... I'd like to know what this crown looks like polished up. And more curious to know what those three dots look like once cleaned up and inspected closely. The shape of the crown- The ridges and the fluted bottom all look like Twinlock attributes to me. Perhaps this was a transitional crown of some sort? My thoughts as well...maybe between the twin lock and triple lock... Oh well, one is not so "rare" anymore with the foil removed, but I will try and polish it and see and post pics of the results... I still can't figure out what tube would work, I have a 6mm tube, it's too small...I have a 7mm tube, but it's got the O'ring grove and does not work... Crown without a matching tube is useless.... RG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 actually it could have been foiled after market syle to sell as new(i doubt it reallybut could have been), i cant see where mine on my watch appears to be foiled but i wouldreally have to take the crown off to really see and yes many rolex crowns r foiled the two tone subs r not solid gold , they r wrapped gold actually just like the stainless u r showing and basically just like our reps r , just better color of wrap basically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docblackrock Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Most intriguing I shall refer to this thread as "the The Zigmeister Crown Affair" Rob, since you're the lead could you in any sense pass for Steve McQueen??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest avitt Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 I firmly believe that this is (was) a genuine Triplock crown. I think that this is the way the early ones were made. I think this because, for some time now, I have notices this "creasing" on the inside beveled edge (the edge facing the watch case) of the early Triplocks. I had actually wondered about this, until today. It was my opinion that this characteristic was more desireable, and I have been looking for such crowns. Here is a picture, from Doubleredseadweller.com, which clearly shows what I am talking about: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWG Technical Posted November 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Well that being the case, I guess I'll polish up the one I ruined, and maybe it will be usable... As for the other one, I'll not ruin it and leave it alone...guess I jumped the gun by stripping the foil off, but it could have been a twinlock model...oh well, live and learn... RG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Since it was my idea to strip the crown, Rob, I don't mind sending you some money to compensate for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 I firmly believe that this is (was) a genuine Triplock crown. I think that this is the way the early ones were made. I think this because, for some time now, I have notices this "creasing" on the inside beveled edge (the edge facing the watch case) of the early Triplocks. I had actually wondered about this, until today. It was my opinion that this characteristic was more desireable, and I have been looking for such crowns. Here is a picture, from Doubleredseadweller.com, which clearly shows what I am talking about: As that is a Patent Pending back, the correct crowns for these would have been the Twin or the Triplock. I would not be surprised if the crown was a folded/foiled version with a Twinlock tube (that would be the only way these could thread down all the way...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWG Technical Posted November 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Since it was my idea to strip the crown, Rob, I don't mind sending you some money to compensate for it... No thanks...I decided to strip the metal off, so it's my problem... I have been sitting on these for a long time, just never thought about what they were... The stripped one I'll polish up, and find a use for it somewhere... I was going to throw them out until we spoke the other day... RG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 they r very desireable for the real vinatge enthusiasts, especially if u can get the twinlock tubes to go with them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 I just had the crown and tube on my gen 1680 (1978) replaced. It had the original old style triplock crown and tube where the tube did not have the outside o-ring. The old crown has the three dots on it. The new crowns (24-7030) are not compatible with the old tube (my watchmaker tried to screw a new crown on, but it didn't work) so I got the new 24-7030 update with the crown and tube. Now I have the outside o-ring on my gen 1680. Collectors like these old crowns, because then they don't have to replace the case tube and can say their watch is still "original". Mark Greenberg had one of these old crowns for sale last week on ebay, like for $50. I have the old crown and tube and will check the crown tonite to see if it has the foil over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest avitt Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 I just had the crown and tube on my gen 1680 (1978) replaced. It had the original old style triplock crown and tube where the tube did not have the outside o-ring. The old crown has the three dots on it. There you go....Mystery solved. There was an early style Triplock, which really wasn't (no outside tube gasket). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 http://cgi.ebay.com/Very-rare-SS-Rolex-Sub...tem220044560803 Here's an old crown- $109 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FxrAndy Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 A point i would like to add (as unqualified in the presant company i am) stainless steel is less magnetic than non stainless, (depends on the grade of stainless) is the foil is non magnetic than the crown underneath then it would seem the factory was wrapping cheeper crowns with good stainless, lets not forget that this was the time that rolex was still making folded link bracelets, and who would buy a watch with a folded link bracelets today! i would like to know the results of this experiment. It could be a white gold wrap ?????? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Looked up the technicals as my curiosity was killing me... Ref. 24-700 (Coronet only; no external tube gasket) 1959 - 1973 Ref. 24-702 (Coronet w/ 3 dots; no external gasket tube) 1973 - 1984. Ref. 24-703 (Coronet w/ 3 dots; external gasket tube present) 1984 - current Have some tube part no's as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 (edited) I think it's a vintage crown for Submariner or SD,there was a tube for this one... With no gasket outline... Look here.. I think Randy is right about this Ref. 24-702 (Coronet w/ 3 dots; no external gasket tube) 1973 - 1984. Hope this helps Edited November 2, 2006 by Tribal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewightstuff Posted November 3, 2006 Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 (edited) yep, early triplock crown before they introduced the proper triplock that added the rubber o-ring onto the crown tube. i picked an old one up for almost nothing attached to a stem for my caliber 1570 while im waiting on a replacement stem to refit. i was thinking of removing the foil on this one though as i really like it but its gold. id be keen to see if it polishes up or not. im going to suspect it wont do too well and that was the reason for the overlay however i hope it does and i can make mine silver and keep it. give it a go and post back please Edited November 3, 2006 by thewightstuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted November 3, 2006 Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 I'm not a part expert either, but... Initially, I thought Rob may've been onto something since I'm of the mind that there were (at least) two versions of the Triplock crown--a "wider" one used on current Sub and SD models and a narrower one used on pre-1996 (or so?) models (you can see the differences in crown widths in the latest version of James Dowlings' "Rolex: The Best of Time"). But I have a hard time believing that Rolex would produce a crown wrapped in foil, regardless of the type or quality of the wrapping. That's just not the kind of thing that Rolex does. On the other hand, I found something similar on a DateJust rep about 10 years ago. Once, while I was putting on a jacket with metal snaps, the crown must've grazed one of the snaps which revealed a generic crown under the foil wrapping that contained the coronet. Not exactly the same, but similar enough to make me think it's more likely a rep crown than a genuine Rolex made part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now