my dad's old Tudor Oyster Date

[Chuck317]

Hello

Got a couple of questions about my dad's old Tudor watch...

first of all this is its history:

- He bought it in either 1966 or 1967 (he can't remember exactly), apparently from a Rolex AD. Unfortunately he lost the box/papers in the 1970s. He was working aboard ships at the time & he was always moving around a lot & at some point they got lost.

- The dial has a big rose symbol thingy where the "12" hour marker should be, on the dial it is signed "TUDOR", under that is "Oyster Date", then at the bottom half is "SHOCK-RESISTING", and at the very bottom is "T SWISS T".

- The back of the case is engraved "ORIGINAL OYSTER CASE BY ROLEX GENEVA" plus the Rolex coronet symbol.

- The screw down crown is engraved with the Rolex coronet.

- The bracelet is non-original, non-Rolex. He said he damaged the original bracelet in the 1970s & sent the watch to my grandmother for her to take it to get a new bracelet fitted (remember he was working aboard ships at the time). Apparently my grandmother balked at the very expensive cost that she was quoted for a genuine Rolex bracelet, & she took it to a non-AD & got an imitation bracelet fitted instead. (He still has the original broken Rolex bracelet.. well, most of it anyway! - it's missing the end link/pin at one end).

- But the rest of it is original just as he bought it. Believe it or not he's never had it serviced but it still seems to be running fine! In fact he wore it until about 10 years ago. (He now wears a Rolex Datejust 16234, bought around 1997, it has a T serial number).

- Anyway I took a look at his old Tudor today, & I wondered about its authenticity. He's adamant it is not a fake, in fact he was quite offended at the suggestion . He said he bought it from a large reputable store which was an AD, & he spent about a month's wages on it, he said he was chastised by his cousin, with whom he visited the store, for spending so much money on a watch. But of course price is no guarantee against being duped.

My questions are:

1) It has a big rose symbol instead of a shield. Was that the correct logo for Tudor in the mid-1960s?

2) What made me doubtful was the lens bubble over the date. He says it's the original crystal. But the magnification seems to me smaller than I expected. I've read that one way of telling a fake Rolex is that they usually don't have the correct x2.5 magnification. Or maybe it is x2.5 but I am not an expert. I compared it to his Datejust & it does seem a little smaller. Should old Tudor watches of that period have the usual Rolex Cyclops lens or did they use a different magnification?

I guess obviously the sure way to find out is to have an expert open the caseback & look inside. Is it a Rolex AD that I need to take it to for an appraisal? I don't want to do that in case I embarrass myself so I thought I'd ask for some expert opinions here first. It needs an overhaul anyway but I am not going to get that done for him if it's not real.

Thanks for reading, I'll post pictures later.

[Tools]

Sounds like a good one to me..

Why not have it properly serviced by Rolex........

[marshallr47]

Welcome to TRF. I'm no expert on Tudors but I'm sure someone here will be able to answer your question. Keep us posted on what you find out. Best of luck.

[Chuck317]

Thanks Larry & Ron.

I am just nervous in case it's not authentic & I make a fool of myself taking it to a Rolex AD & getting laughed off the premises

Originally Posted by Chuck317

He still has the original broken Rolex bracelet.. well, most of it anyway! - it's missing the end link/pin at one end).

Oh, I've just had a closer look at it^...

it's stamped 7205 which I guess is the model number of the bracelet?

is that consistent with a mid-60s Tudor Oyster watch?

[Tools]

First you would have to ask yourself... "Why would I think it is not an original Tudor?"... .... Is your dad prone to fabrication ?

Early Tudors did have the rose... many of us feel that they should not have ever changed to the shield,..........but that's another thread..... Those with the Rose are more rare and sought after..

Model numbers and serial numbers are engraved on the side of the case under the bracelet...easy-peasy....

Every thing that you said you would find on an early Tudor... and the original bracelet would be Rolex too..

[Chuck317]

Originally Posted by Tools

First you would have to ask yourself... "Why would I think it is not an original Tudor?"... .... Is your dad prone to fabrication ?

Early Tudors did have the rose... many of us feel that they should not have ever changed to the shield,..........but that's another thread..... Those with the Rose are more rare and sought after..

Model numbers and serial numbers are engraved on the side of the case under the bracelet...easy-peasy....

Every thing that you said you would find on an early Tudor... and the original bracelet would be Rolex too..

Thanks for the info Larry. My doubt is mainly because the magnification of the date seems smaller than I expected, it doesn't look particularly big & it does seem smaller compared to the magnification on his modern Rolex DJ.

[Chuck317]

I've uploaded pics of the front & back of the watch on my Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3924987...7622365749767/

(I hope the link works.)

edit: Woops I can embed here.


As you can see it needs servicing & a good clean. He cracked the crystal (bottom left edge) accidentally years ago, so that needs replacing. The crown is shown unscrewed.

But as you can see, the magnification of the date does seem not that big compared to what I expect of an authentic Rolex cyclops...


Caseback. The bracelet here is not original as he broke it accidentally in the 70s.

(The broken original is a Rolex-signed bracelet, stamped model number 7205, which he still has. Oh, the surviving endpiece is stamped 61, I've no idea what that means if anything.)

The crown has the Rolex coronet symbol on it, but you can't see it in this photo due to the angle (and my camera isn't great for close ups).

[Rags]

I would have it serviced. My dad recently gave me my grandfathers 10k gold Hamilton watch was given to him for 50 yrs of service from Western Union( he passed away in 1963). I had it serviced & polished put on a new lizzard band & it looks great. Just think of the sentimental value of that fine watch...

[Chuck317]

Originally Posted by Rags

I would have it serviced. My dad recently gave me my grandfathers 10k gold Hamilton watch was given to him for 50 yrs of service from Western Union( he passed away in 1963). I had it serviced & polished put on a new lizzard band & it looks great. Just think of the sentimental value of that fine watch...

Hey Chuck

That's really touching. I think knowing the history behind a watch, especially that personal family connection, gives it an extra special meaning on top of the aesthetic & material. Everytime you look at your Hamilton, it's like you're connecting with your grandfather.

I am kind of reassured by the comments from Larry. Most of you guys are pretty expert enthusiasts that I am sure if the Tudor was fake someone will voice their suspicions with just a quick glance. I feel more confident now about taking it to a Rolex AD to request an overhaul. After which I'll ask my dad if I can have it... after all he's not wearing it anymore

[Tools]

It looks like a somewhat rare Tudor "Big Rose" model..

Take it to Rolex Bexley...get an estimate; they'll tell you what you want to know.... and take that old bracelet in too.. they may have an end-link for you..

[Chuck317]

More pics ... of the original (broken) "Rolex" bracelet... does it seem genuine or consistent with the "Tudor Oyster Date" watch?


Overview... you can see it's missing the endpiece at one end. The links have become somewhat loose & stretchy. (maybe that was why it broke).

(Sorry for the distorted perspective, it was taken at an angle.)


The clasp is stamped:

Rolex logo with swirly flourish. (raised)
Patented & Registered
Swiss Made
Steelinox

(And yes it needs a good clean.)


Stamped on the reverse of the bottom clasp piece:

2
67

I am not sure what that means... Is it the date ie Feb 67? - As my dad says he bought the watch in 1966/67 (he can't remember exactly although he thinks it was probably '67).

It snaps together nice & firmly. The clasp handle flip thingy is in the shape of the Rolex coronet.. should it be?


"7205" is stamped on the end link at the broken end (I think it's the last link before the missing endpiece?). I think it's the model/serial number or something.


"61" is stamped on the surviving endpiece. No idea what it means (if anything).

[Widows Son]

Wow!!! Neat story and beautiful watch. That baby needs a good cleaning and an overhaul. Even if it seems to run OK, parts worn out from no lubrication can be difficult to find and very expensive for vintage watches. Someone on this site can recommend a good place for service in your area. PS, we demand pictures after her facelift!!