[jdc]

Originally Posted by fusionstorm

Bear with me, as I'm going to jump back and forth in terms of which side of this issue I'm lining up on.........

I've never done business with Steve M, but I know a number of people who have and were happy with their transactions. He's obviously well-known and well-regarded in the vintage Rolex community.

I have seen him state that a 9M serial Sea Dweller could have come with a matte dial. I'm not in agreement with that and I've yet to meet anyone else who is.

But there are no hard and fast rules Rolex followed when transitioning from radium to matte dials, and from matte dials to luminova. Is there a possibility a batch of matte dials could have been found in someone's desk drawer or in a box at the factory during the transition period? Certainly. Would Rolex have destroyed them, if such an event occurred? Unlikely.

I've seen testimony from original purchasers of Rolexes that had originality issues (e.g. non-"straight across" casebacks on Double Red SDs) stating that's how it came when they bought it at the AD. There have been plenty of instances of Rolex repurposing parts, such as using 5513 casebacks in 5512s. So there's precedent here that Rolex could've had a batch of matte dialed 5513s leave the factory after they'd already begun production of the glossy dialed versions.

Just because a seller is respected in the community doesn't mean a buyer should throw caution out the window, place complete trust in them and perform no due diligence before entering into a transaction. If something were to go awry b/c of lack of knowledge/awareness about "originality", that's on the buyer IMO. A quick investigation or simply posting a question would've revealed the skepticism about an 8.6M serial 5513 having a matte dial.

But at the end of the day, no one can say with 100% certainty that this 5513 originally left the AD with a gloss dial. Why? Because unless someone here worked for Rolex in their manufacturing group throughout the decade of the 80s, it's mere speculation and anecdotal evidence. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that there is always the chance for an outlier or three.

IMO there are two solutions here for the OP. One, take up Steve on his offer to apply what was paid towards the acquisition of another watch in his inventory. Or two, acquire a 5513 set that falls within the "safe" serial range but is currently outfitted with a gloss dial (they certainly come up for sale with some regularity), and swap out the dials. Typically, such "should be matte dial" sets are priced pretty aggressively b/c of the presence of a gloss dial, so the OP should end up with fairly priced matte and gloss 5513 sets if he is patient.

*** EDIT - forgot to add that the few hundred thousand difference in serial number between what is generally accepted as the "late matte dial 5513" period versus the start of the glossy dial period represents less than a year in Rolex's manufacturing world. So the possibility is higher that they may have come upon a few "straggler" matte dials and pushed them out after the gloss dials had already started being manufactured. ***

The OP on top of the gloss/matte dial debate has concerns that he has a Mark III dial on the watch. While a Mark V dial could be argued at a push a Mark III dial could not and would not be compatible with the serial number.