Nanuq Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Okay gents, what do I see wrong with this beauty? Vintage Ebay Sub
POTR Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Umm..... That "Nuke" Pearl you were really interested in, on an incorrect "squared number, hashes to 15" insert on a nearly perfectly even worn brass true coin edge bezel surrounding an aftermarket T19, which gives a rather 'wokky' looking distortion of the rehaut when viewed from the side, with a very nice SWISS gilt dial and hands (although the seconds looks like a newer replacement), in a decent looking case with Brevet Crown, with an unfortunate mis-drilled hole on the upper right lug, enclosing a very nice looking, and appropriate 1030, with a good looking caseback with bad looking date stamp. Hmmm.... Who's running the grill? The franks are a little underdone.
Nanuq Posted June 9, 2008 Author Report Posted June 9, 2008 Good, good... except for the T18 reference. What's even more obvious than all this...?
cdv Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 That pearl is awesome. I'm terrible at this game, but even I can pick that one out. Is the crown correct? Looks very shiny to me even if it is right.
POTR Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Hmmmm.... Can't see the forest for the trees? Can't see the between the lugs shot... doesn't exist for me... so if it was there, I can't say... Perhaps it was the brand new replica rivet bracelet that is bothering you?
freddy333 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Good, good... except for the T18 reference. What's even more obvious than all this...? Bezel/insert are wrong for that model & the minute hand looks too long.
cdv Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Minute hand to long or just a bad angle? Red triangle on the bezel?
POTR Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Going back and reading his description... The /1 came out in 57... so.... his serial is off by about 150K.
POTR Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Administrative Privileges Besides, as some band once said... We do it all for the Nuqi.
alligoat Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 I agree with POTR- the insert looks like a 5513 insert. The lugholes look OK to me- it's just the pics and the lugs have been polished (overpolished?). A T-16 would be correct for the 6536-1, but the crystal looks OK to me. Movement and crown seem OK. I do agree that the seconds hand appears to be a later replacement.
JoJo35 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Appears to be a 16 on there, thin bezel makes it appear taller. Folded bracelet is incorrect for this model
Nanuq Posted June 9, 2008 Author Report Posted June 9, 2008 Keep 'em coming! What's the thing that caught my eye first and, IMO, disqualifies the whole piece?
JoJo35 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Appears to be a 16 on there, thin bezel makes it appear taller. Folded bracelet is incorrect for this model Oops, my bad. On a better look, it appears to be a Swiss rivet. That's worth well over a grand right there
jfreeman420 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Um, I don't think it is supposed to say "submariner" on the dial for one this old, am i wrong?
jfreeman420 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Also there is not supposed to be swiss on the bottom and it should say 100/330 maybe the "submariner" is ok but the dial is fake or redial.
UncleJay Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 I believe that the font on the case back is incorrect. Didn't it have the older (swiss CROWN made) print? Wasn't the /1 a fixed lug case and was there even a /1 designation on the case and case back?
alligoat Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Swiss on the bottom of the dial is OK- this is before tritium which came in around 1963-4. The dial is actually Radium. Should it have Submariner??? I don't know, maybe it's too early???
Nanuq Posted June 9, 2008 Author Report Posted June 9, 2008 Wow you guys are good. Mine's a 1958 and has the SWISS dial... radium. The kicker is the colors used for "100m - 330ft" and "Submariner" Here's mine:
alligoat Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 I don't think the difference in white or gilt dial print is a big deal on the depth rating and I certainly don't see anything wrong with the all gilt dial from the pic- but the pic ain't that good. I guess I'll have to go home and read Skeet and Urul. Remember, this was the 50's and Rolex did what they did. Who would have thought 50 years later collectors would be over analyzing their vintage watches. I'm stuck on two minor things- the bezel insert (a 5513 insert) and a possibly replaced second hand- what can you do if the old one breaks! Three, if you count the bracelet, but it's a non issue in my mind. Price is pretty high, but that's the market. These guys are elephant hunting- if they get one, they can live off the meat for 6 months!
JoJo35 Posted June 9, 2008 Report Posted June 9, 2008 Wow you guys are good. Mine's a 1958 and has the SWISS dial... radium. The kicker is the colors used for "100m - 330ft" and "Submariner" Here's mine: Sorry Nanuq, I think you may be wrong on this one. Early versions of the '36 had depth ratings in red, and IMO this dial looks 100%. This watch is obviously worth a lot of money, but it is beat up a bit. It would be interesting what the Timezone folks would say about it.
Nanuq Posted June 9, 2008 Author Report Posted June 9, 2008 Hmmmm... I've never seen one with SUBMARINER in anything but gold on a gilt dial. It should be silver 100m over gold SUBMARINER. Or, as you said, red depth rating over gold SUB.
llsteve80 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 Man, you guys should start an authentication service. Sell it on eBay.
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