eunomians Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 I took a few pics this afternoon for reference purposes. I suppose that there might be some members here that would be interested in seeing these pics. Oddly enough, both watches are from '66-'67. As u can see, one is thicker than the other. Actually, the 5513 is significantly thicker. The 1675 is sleek and contoured to fit the wrist. The 5513 is like a tank, thick, and much more bulky than the 1675. They are not very similar to one another. And, of course, they were designed with different purposes in mind. Enjoy...
By-Tor Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Different, yes. But they're both great... they're real Rolexes from the better times.
elprimerozen Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Can i see these live?If yes please send them to me!
Guest avitt Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Fantastic reference photos! I could look at those all day. Thanks for sharing. I'm struck by the similar appearance of the aged markers and hands. I guess it can be attributed to them both being born at around the same time...But it's still remarkable!
eunomians Posted April 17, 2007 Author Report Posted April 17, 2007 Nanuq: I love it! One fine day... I've got to get a pre-5512/3. That slim case profile makes me go crazy!
miquel Posted April 17, 2007 Report Posted April 17, 2007 (edited) I always think of the vintage pieces and wish for one. Then comes the work to build a 5513 from an MBW, etc, etc. and I become less wantful. Then Eunomians, Nanuq, and Ubi show up with their's and *BANG* I wanna check my bank account. Great pics of great watches! Pure horological porn. Thanks! Edited April 17, 2007 by miquel
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