5513 bracelet, what is correct?

[Phi.H]

Hi all from a newbie.
I currently own a 1980 5513 Submariner but I've been questioned a couple of times about the bracelet. Mine has a 78360 bracelet without the oyster-lock. Now I've been told that this is the bracelet fitted to the GMT of the same period but NOT the Sub. My old friend Barry had a 5513 of a similar vintage that he sold 4-5 years ago and that had the same bracelet as mine. Since he'd been questioned about it a few times too, he did a little investigating and quickly unearthed several 5513s with the same bracelet.
It seems a bit odd to me that there are quite a few out there fitted with this type of bracelet. Firstly, it would take one heck of a lot of damage to render a bracelet unserviceable (and you'd wonder why the watch wasn't damaged too if things were that bad). Secondly, assuming the bracelet was so badly damaged that it had to be replaced why replace it with a GMT bracelet rather than the original oyster-lock ??, both types would have been available at the time.

I can only think of two possible scenarios:
1) did Rolex actually sell some 5513 Subs in the early 1980's that were fitted with this bracelet as standard?

or

2) was this a popular option for some owners who, for some reason, didn't like the oyster-lock and weren't using the watch as a diving watch so changed the bracelet?

I'm currently looking for a buyer in the For Sale section so I'd like to know in order to satisfy my curiosity over a question that's been bugging me for years and to have a definitive answer if a buyer asks me about the bracelet.

Any input would be much appreciated, thanks, Phil.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Phi.H

Hi all from a newbie.
I currently own a 1980 5513 Submariner but I've been questioned a couple of times about the bracelet. Mine has a 78360 bracelet without the oyster-lock. Now I've been told that this is the bracelet fitted to the GMT of the same period but NOT the Sub. My old friend Barry had a 5513 of a similar vintage that he sold 4-5 years ago and that had the same bracelet as mine. Since he'd been questioned about it a few times too, he did a little investigating and quickly unearthed several 5513s with the same bracelet.
It seems a bit odd to me that there are quite a few out there fitted with this type of bracelet. Firstly, it would take one heck of a lot of damage to render a bracelet unserviceable (and you'd wonder why the watch wasn't damaged too if things were that bad). Secondly, assuming the bracelet was so badly damaged that it had to be replaced why replace it with a GMT bracelet rather than the original oyster-lock ??, both types would have been available at the time.

I can only think of two possible scenarios:
1) did Rolex actually sell some 5513 Subs in the early 1980's that were fitted with this bracelet as standard?

or

2) was this a popular option for some owners who, for some reason, didn't like the oyster-lock and weren't using the watch as a diving watch so changed the bracelet?

I'm currently looking for a buyer in the For Sale section so I'd like to know in order to satisfy my curiosity over a question that's been bugging me for years and to have a definitive answer if a buyer asks me about the bracelet.

Any input would be much appreciated, thanks, Phil.

The 5513 1964-1989 the very early 5513 had ref 7336 bracelet with 382 end-links later 1980 plus models had the ref 9315 or 93150 with 580 end-links.

[Phi.H]

Mine has 501 B end links. Seems to be wrong bracelet then but it looks good and suits the watch. Still wonder why so many of these with this bracelet. Another thought occured to me; maybe this was originally on a strap and the GMT bracelet was cheap & available ????

[GeoGio Greece]

As my story with Rolex started when I purchased a Sub back in the '70's, I can verify that as long as I remember they were on their own bracelets with the extention, whatever you want to call it, divers, oyster clasp, etc.

My first one, a Sub with no date, ( a 5513 of the time ????, who knows, I new nothing about models at that time ), had the extention link, but the bracelet had folded links. The watch is long gone, the remainings of the original bracelet are still with me, as I had changed it once due to breakage.

To verify Padi, I took off my wrist my current 1983 5513 to check, and the original bracelet reads 93150 with 580 end links.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by padi56

The 5513 1964-1989 the very early 5513 had ref 7336 bracelet with 382 end-links later 1980 plus models had the ref 9315 or 93150 with 580 end-links.

^this

[cajuntiger]

great resource here:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=347108

[Phi.H]

Yeah, it certainly seems that this is definitely the wrong bracelet........but why are there quite a few out there with the GMT bracelet? That's the mystery.

[HERITAGE82]

Originally Posted by Phi.H

Yeah, it certainly seems that this is definitely the wrong bracelet........but why are there quite a few out there with the GMT bracelet? That's the mystery.

There are quite a few because as a replacement the GMT bracelet is less expensive than the Submariner bracelet. Therefore, when a store/dealer has a "head only" watch they can make it whole with less money invested. That is also why many have the less expensive/more common 501b end links instead of the rare/more expensive proper 580's on vintage sport watches.

[GeoGio Greece]

Originally Posted by GeoGio Greece

My first one, a Sub with no date, ( a 5513 of the time ????, who knows, I new nothing about models at that time ), had the extention link, but the bracelet had folded links. The watch is long gone, the remainings of the original bracelet are still with me, as I had changed it once due to breakage.

I had put the divers extention on my other Oyster, the one of my GMT, and kept the bracelet and the normal clasp.

[springer]

My 1972 SUBMARINER 5513 had the USA Oyster bracelet (C&I).

[Phi.H]

Originally Posted by HERITAGE82

There are quite a few because as a replacement the GMT bracelet is less expensive than the Submariner bracelet. Therefore, when a store/dealer has a "head only" watch they can make it whole with less money invested. That is also why many have the less expensive/more common 501b end links instead of the rare/more expensive proper 580's on vintage sport watches.

Yep, that makes perfect sense. I'd suspected that might be the reason, it always comes to cost eh?

[southtexas]

I've seen an old ad that had subs on 7836 bracelets. I'll look for the pic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[droptopman]

I have seen plenty of different bracelets on Submariners. Some of the early gilt subs in the mid 50's came with the expandable 6636 rivet bracelet with 58 end links. Then in the early to mid 60's, the 7206 Swiss rivet bracelet with 80 end links, followed by the 9315 with 380's, and some C&I's in the 70's, then the 93150 with 580's.

[springer]

Originally Posted by droptopman

I have seen plenty of different bracelets on Submariners. Some of the early gilt subs in the mid 50's came with the expandable 6636 rivet bracelet with 58 end links. Then in the early to mid 60's, the 7206 Swiss rivet bracelet with 80 end links, followed by the 9315 with 380's, and some C&I's in the 70's, then the 93150 with 580's.

Good post mark. You covered it very well.

[droptopman]

Originally Posted by springer

Good post mark. You covered it very well.

Thank you JP