Guest chronomat123 Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 The movement is real, yes... but does the case look fishy? Crown guards maybe? I know the bezel insert is fake and the dial looks suspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 the pics r not so good but , yes the case looks aftermarket to me as well, the movment looks funny as well, but the pics r not so great , take a pic of the winder on the other side so we can read the writing on it , part of it look genuine but part of it looks fishy to me , however i have not worked on a no date movment before and it is different than the dated version , i would say the dial is a readial but again the pics r in a funny color im just speculating but for sure if it was told to u to be 100% genuine , i would say bologne to that where did u get if from? joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 @chrono: The crystal looks too high and bulged to me. That doesn't mean anything though... Can't say for sure about the rest, try to shoot some better shots (preferably in daylight). Here's a reference pic of the 5513 to compare. Sorry, I have no crystal sideview shot of the 5513 but Tudor Military Sub supposedly used the same case and crystal: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 isnt that two different styled 5513 , or did they still have the same crystals edited: i see now what u r saying, unless it is the superdome style tropic 19 ? nanug would be best for the crystal issue , it could be but im not sure i will come back after the new year and see what u come up with, now im off to sleep , hope it works out for u joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Here's a movement shot of 5513: Great reference site: http://collectiondemontres.free.fr/mapetit...olex5513sub.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chronomat123 Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 @ BT: Good shots there. The crystal does look suspect, I used to own a gen 5513 and I remember it not being so thick. However, Rolex did make superdome 5513s I've been told. Do the case and crown on this look anything like your MBW Tudor Sub? @ RBJ: Pretty damn sure the movement is gen. My concern is that this is an MBW or the like with a gen Rolex slapped in. You're def right, the case just doesn't look right, and the condition seems too good. Also, the serial number is 6745354. Anyone have any fake cases with this serial #? Also, look at the lugs. Don't they seem a little too long vertically? This is a flaw with the MBWs, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 @chrono: That's what I was thinking. My MBW Tudor Snowflake came with similar crystal but the crown guards definitely look better on your watch. Crown is definitely not the same. It looks genuine to me... but Randy can probably verify that. How does the pearl look... can you post a pic? Too bad I don't have the MBW's anymore to compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 bythor that is what i thought the movment looks like , i didnt know they made some without the 1520 stamping on it like chrono is showing unless they stamped it somewhere else? and on the case , i dont even think it is a mbw , just because how square the cgs look but they could have been shaped , but mainly the case like u said looks really new for this watch again on the crystal it is possible to be a superdome 19 but if the other stuff is not then why put a expensive crystal on it? could be a aftermarket of the superdome , not sure? joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Guys...check this site. It has TONS of 5513 shots: http://collectiondemontres.free.fr/mapetit...olex5513sub.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 wow the first pic of bythors looks similar to your cgs chrono, maybe u can pose your watch the same way and take us some pics in the same angles ok now i must get my beauty rest, lol happy new years guys joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Just wait for Ubi to take a look, and all will be cleared up. Would be nice to see some better dial shots though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Dial, hands, movement, crown, tube, crystal (current RSC replacement genuine 19) are all legit... Insert looks a bit suspect. Case... Looks a bit too clean and sharp, but lugs look fine with regards to shape... CG's are a bit strange. Funny how the dial is obviously quite old, yet the case is crisp and there is a strange combination of original and replacment parts installed that just don't logically add up (in terms of how an RSC would service). Did this piece come with any service history or papers of any sort? Looks too clean to have NOT been serviced recently (inside and out), so I would think that documentation should exist. I am hesitant to say that the case is an official service replacement- The s/n doesn't reflect that to be the case; replacement cases come with a very specific NEW s/n, as you vintage afficionados know. Any chance you can take some pics between the lugs? Who is the seller, and where did you buy it? That may tell me all I need to know. PM me with the details if you like... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsons Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Couple of more shots of the gen 5513: To my eyes, the case looks bulky as do the CGs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 To my eyes, the case looks bulky as do the CGs. You're right!! The lugs and CGs both look bulky. Ruh roh!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 The one in Jet's pic looks to be all original with a very light to minimal polish... The sharp case edges prove that. But note how clean the dial is as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gran Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 ubiquitous knows his rolli stuff well its genuine but are some of the parts like the crown new/or not original? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 The crown looks to be original. The era for this style crown (702) fits right in line with a 5513 with a 6.7M s/n (1980 - 1981); 703's weren't intro'd until '84-ish if I recall correct. The crystal is a genuine current RSC replacement; dial and hands look to be correct for this period of watch. The case, on the other hand and in relation to the existing parts, looks to be a bit too new for the age of the watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Of course, the easy answer is to validate at an RSC. They'll check the s/n against the movement s/n, etc. Should there be problems with this watch, hopefully there is recourse with the seller... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Chronomat PM'd me with some details- And after taking a step back and giving all the elements of the equation some thought, it makes sense. The watch has a 6.7M serial, putting production around '80/'81. This is period correct for the crystal style, the tube etc. OOPS! Have to edit here... I just went aand re-read chronomat's PM; his serial and case verification was on his 16550, and NOT his 5513. Sorry for the mis-understanding... A fault of my own as I only briefly scanned over his PM (sorry about that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 The variations in detail never cease to amaze me!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chronomat123 Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 Thank you so much, guys. You're all a class act. The watch will arrive here Wednesday and the seller has agreed to give me 7 days for inspection, so I'm going to see if my local Rolex AD can verify everything through Rolex NY. Happy New Year's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddhead Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 I own a 5513 but I do not have the discerning eye that many of you do. Mine is a 1985 edition. The pics are tough, but based on what I can see, it looks gen to me. Mine too has a fairly high domed crystal.. in fact when I first at chronmat's I thought maybe it was not domed enough. But I tried to lay mine down at the same angle as the shot above... and it looks dead on to me. I am not sure about the CG's they look a bit thick, but it is really hard to tell fromt the pic. ll. The crown itself looks right to me. If I had to guess, I would say it is a gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marrickvilleboy Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 great buy! maybe.....change the title of this thread? since u didnt get scammed...hehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewightstuff Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) 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 Edited January 2, 2007 by thewightstuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Spring set up.. For the balance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.