Craytonic Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 ubi all I can say is that I am amazed... you really give meaning to the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words" from what you can pick up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Since the 1520 in the 5513 is not a Chronometer Certified movement, it does not have the freesprung balance. Cray... Thank you thewightstuff also has a very good eye for these things. **Edited to correct; just found revised comments I made in my note book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewightstuff Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) 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. Edited January 2, 2007 by thewightstuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaca22 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) ,..,,, Edited November 12, 2007 by vaca22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Dial and crown are legit. Crystal is not the superdomed Tropic, but rather the later version. Lugs and CG's are fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 BTW... Just a guess, but does the movement look strange to you because of the finish brushing on the bridges and rotor (or rather, what appears to be the lack of finish/brushing)? That's one thing that looked odd to me... But the pic is just so over exposed that you can't see the brushing. At least on my screen... But if I tip at just the right angle, I can see it present... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewightstuff Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) 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. Edited January 3, 2007 by thewightstuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gran Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 What are MBWs? Do a search here or on old RWG and you will be enlightened.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Dial is correct. Have seen several like this- Remember, Rolex has had 3 different dial makers, each of them using different fonts, coronets, etc. Chronomat's And another (left) As for the crystal... To me, it looks like the most recent version; domed/superdomed crystals don't rise up that high on the edges and don't have the bevel on the edge. The distortion could be a by-product of polishing scratches out, which I have seen before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewightstuff Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 did you read your PMs and have a look at the links therein? my feeling is that this still doesnt look good in the least however as stated several times. i wouldnt wish a dodgy watch on anyone and hope that its not the case. i couldnt make out the bevel on the edge which was what i was looking for. maybe i need a new monitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Yes, I just replied to your PM... I am still firm in the belief that this is not a redial; this dial is I believe a Bey. produced piece. It's not a typical HK redial as used by jdm_k20, or CWP, as the fonts used on those are quite specific, and easy to identify (I've had a fair number of these redials, BTW). As for the crystal... It wouldn't be domed anyways, as it's production is too far out; the domed acrylics were used earlier- 60's into the early 70's. This watch, with a 6.7M s/n would be very early 80's; they quit using the domed crystal by this point, and have transitioned to the 'flat' T-19. Crown looks fine... Tube looks fine. Case looks a little too good to be true, as it's a little too clean and perfect, but who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heywood Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth. Movement, dial and hands look OK to me. From the pics it's hard to make a call on the crystal, but I'm leaning toward aftermarket/MBW. It does not look like a beveled tropic 19 at all to me. IMHO the case is aftermarket-heres why-if you look directly across from the crown at the 9 o'clock position there should be a divot in the case to allow for the case screws on the movement to fit into the case. When the movement is being installed in the case one movement screw clears the case where the crown tube hole is machined and the other clears at the 9 o'clock position in the divot that is machined in to the case. Unless I'm seeing things this divot is not present. Maybe from a different angle things would look different, but I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Hmmmm... Maybe it's just me, but this looks like a bevel that's seen some polishing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewightstuff Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 (edited) hmm, thats where the edge is on both my domed subs where the domed top and vertical sides meet though its more rounded on this one showing that its been polished off some, or more likely isnt genuine. the modern ones have a 45 degree plane from this point, about 1.5mm in length before turning with another sharp edge horizontaly across the top with a slight dome in the centre. this edge is quite considerable and it would take more than polishing to remove this to look like a dome. you would need to consciously grind it down then polish and im not sure the crystal thickness would accomodate properly. polishing could certainly dull the sharp edges but not to the extent of this as far as i can tell from the photo. ill get two profile snaps taken to show what i mean ref the crown logo on the dial. for my money its still too long compared to its width, the slope of the sides and thickness is off for me still when compared to that shown in your comparison photo. Edited January 3, 2007 by thewightstuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 I've seen 9 or 10 of these dials that I can recall off the top of my head; some in pics and a few in hand. My comments on it's authenticity are based on my experience. I posted the first pic I found in my files of the dial I am comparing to. If you are basing your comments as a fake on a dial that you have seen pics of, please post them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chronomat123 Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Thanks, everyone, for your opinions. This one had me really torn up until this morning Ubi, you're the best. She's a gen Rolex :) :) Brought it to a well-reputed vintage Rolex dealer in Miami and it checked out all clean, we even compared it to another 5513, the case on this one matches up A-OK. Dial original, movement original, case original, bezel original, bracelet original, endpieces and springbars original. I have to say, this is my second 5513, and I really feel this one is the best example I've ever seen. The dial has aged beautifully (original pictures of it were terrible!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devedander Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 After all that it's all gen... who woulda thunk it Can I ask why you bought a second 5513? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewightstuff Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 (edited) f$&K me, is that even the same watch. just shows how absolutely atrocious those other pics were. three pages of going back and forth for nothing at all. theres no question with those two pics. dont want to sound off but im astounded given some of the info spilled that you didnt just wait till you got the watch and look yourself saving everyone a lot of time and bother. even more so since you have another gen there too. posting pics after inspecting in the flesh and asking if you were still unsure would have been better, just looking against your other watch would have been better still. Edited January 3, 2007 by thewightstuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chronomat123 Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 After all that it's all gen... who woulda thunk it Can I ask why you bought a second 5513? Hey dander, I bought a second one because I sold the first. @wightstuff. I wanted to know what the deal with this thing was because I had just paid for it via PayPal and was considering charging it back, as someone who saw the eBay ad I bought it from told me it looked suspect. One thing leads to another... I really appreciate your opinions and time, but I think I handled this correctly. It was a big risk, not charging it back, and some of the opinions on here helped sway me towards continuing the transaction, and I'm now glad I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewightstuff Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 (edited) fair enough, it would seem to me that the best time to ask would have been before though maybe you did and i misunderstood. asking while waiting on it arriving was something IMHO that serves not much purpose, even more so in light on both the heated debate, the lack of any question with proper pics posted and i assume physical contact with the watch and your experience. i understand the paypal chargeback but you werent in any danger of expiring with regards to this. waiting the few days would have had little impact and infact prevented any debate at all given the watch itself. anyways, just MHO. i hope you get alot of joy from the watch. i love my 5513 and 5512 Edited January 3, 2007 by thewightstuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Nice looking 5513, and even nicer photos!! With the new pics posted, it definitely looks more it's age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsons Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 I don't think there would have been much argument over the authenticity of the 5513 with your photos. It may be the lighting but the first set of pics sure do look like they're of a different watch. Glad that all turned out well for you and enjoy the 5513. Great watch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuDro Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 From these photos, it appears that the crown may touch the bezel when fully screwed down...Is it just me? Please advise. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 The crown will clear once fully seated on the threads. The case at the CG base is offset a bit to help with clearance; in addition, the bottom of the crown has a beveled angle to also help clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marrickvilleboy Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 now can we please change the title.... thank you. wear it well! 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