5513 Info Please

[mixz1]

This is my 5513, serial 1681XXX, purchased in July 1967 and worn continuously since, both above under under some fairly deep water. Please excuse the bad photos. This watch has been regularly serviced by Rolex in New York, until it's last service by a AD here in Cancun, Mexico. I have only become aware of the intricacies of vintage preservation since joining this forum.

When I last had the watch serviced my instructions were to not replace the face, hands and bezel, and to the best of my knowledge, the AD respected that request. But looking at the picture, the tritium on the hands is a distinctly different color from the face. It is possible the hands were replaced in an earlier service, before I was aware of things. BTW, what looks like fading on the dial is an artifact of the photo, as is the dust. The dial is solid black. However the tritium at the 9 position looks flawed, no? Also, the band was replaced by Rolex 30 years ago.

At any rate, as a newbie, I'd like your opinions about my old faithful and a rundown of whatever information you can share. Thanks in advance for anything you can tell me.

[Some Pair]

Looks real nice!
an expert will chime in soon, But what about the bracelet. No Rivets? Maybe replaced? but you did not mention anything about the bracelet.

[adam78]

Yes, the bracelet is a solid-link 93150 flip-lock, looks to be in nice shape. These were introduced in the mid-late '70s.

If the hands don't glow after exposure to bright light (the dial markers should be quite dead luminously-speaking, but were possibly relumed at some point? They are not quite neatly filling the lume plots), then then are also tritium. I suspect that watch-in-hand the hands and snow-white markers are pretty close in hue. You don't show the insert pearl (dot), but these are often changed to Luminova during a service. Hopefully, though, it's still tritium.

Very nice meters-first Sub!

[mixz1]

Originally Posted by Some Pair

Looks real nice!
an expert will chime in soon, But what about the bracelet. No Rivets? Maybe replaced? but you did not mention anything about the bracelet.

I guess I should have used the word bracelet instead of band. From the original post: "Also, the band was replaced by Rolex 30 years ago." The original had become all stretched out and I didn't think to have it re-built.

[SubKing]

the hands are lume hands for sure not tritium. also, the dial has been re lumed which is not well regarded in the collector market... you can tell because the markers are puffy and not very well done.

if that were my watch and they did that, i would make them replace the hands with a set of tritium hands which run 350 range new old stock if you can find em.. the dial also needs to be replaced with new old stock and that could run you 1500 bucks for original tritium dial. nice watch, but they updated it quite a bit and took the vintage right out of it.

[mixz1]

Originally Posted by adam78

Yes, the bracelet is a solid-link 93150 flip-lock, looks to be in nice shape. These were introduced in the mid-late '70s.

If the hands don't glow after exposure to bright light (the dial markers should be quite dead luminously-speaking, but were possibly relumed at some point? They are not quite neatly filling the lume plots), then then are also tritium. I suspect that watch-in-hand the hands and snow-white markers are pretty close in hue. You don't show the insert pearl (dot), but these are often changed to Luminova during a service. Hopefully, though, it's still tritium.

Very nice meters-first Sub!

Thank you for the reply. You are correct that in hand the the difference between the hands and dial is hardly noticeable. The dot is the original 1967 dot, as is the bezel. As I said, I'm unsure of what went on under the acrylic during past services, but there is a bit of luminance left if exposed to a 100 watt light bulb, with the hands dimmer than the dial and the dot dimmest of all. I don't think there's a nanogram of Luminova in this particular watch.

[mixz1]

Originally Posted by SubKing

the hands are lume hands for sure not tritium. also, the dial has been re lumed which is not well regarded in the collector market... you can tell because the markers are puffy and not very well done.

if that were my watch and they did that, i would make them replace the hands with a set of tritium hands which run 350 range new old stock if you can find em.. the dial also needs to be replaced with new old stock and that could run you 1500 bucks for original tritium dial. nice watch, but they updated it quite a bit and took the vintage right out of it.

Thanks for the info. The "they" is obviously Rolex New York and I'm disappointed to find this out. Since that particular service was 6 years ago I doubt there's any mileage left in trying to revert to NOS fittings. Also, since I'm not a collector (2 watches, my daily Sub and my dress up 18K D/D), so the watch, beautiful as it is, is what I need it to be, a tough, functional, accurate timepiece that has not failed me in 43 continuous years of use.

Now I'll just go off and sulk a bit.

[jedly1]

your hands are later service replacement look like luminova rather than super, but the dial is probably fine and is what you would expect to see on a 67 ish sub with the first matt dials, the lume can be a little less neat on the odd marker, but the half malteser domed plots are unmistakable from that very tight time period (1.55-1.85 ishh).
no biggy but its a service bezel insert also.

it is perfectly normal and expected for this dial to glow after exposure to a strong light source. this is the dial that cuases so much confusion..


http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=123171

this one belonged to the now retired owner of my local authorised dealership bought in 1968 (the family have had the shop for over 100 years) worn until he bought a redsub in 1971, when it was put in the safe, never serviced and killer condition.






or another ;

[mixz1]

Originally Posted by jedly1

your hands are later service replacement look like luminova rather than super, but the dial is probably fine and is what you would expect to see on a 67 ish sub with the first matt dials, the lume can be a little less neat on the odd marker, but the half malteser domed plots are unmistakable from that very tight time period (1.55-1.85 ishh).
no biggy but its a service bezel insert also.

it is perfectly normal and expected for this dial to glow after exposure to a strong light source. this is the dial that cuases so much confusion..


http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=123171

Again, thanks. All of you have such detailed knowledge. If you don't mind taking the time, can you please explain how you know it's a service bezel, and what's a half malteser. If the bezel was replaced, again, it must trace back to a Rolex NY service done before I realized the value of the watch. I bought this watch in Groton, CT for 360 (1967) dollars. I guess it has appreciated a bit.

[jedly1]

lol, sorry, a malteser is honeycombed snack covered in chocolate, if you strip the chocolate and cut one in half it looks like that type of marker so its a bit of a coloqialism :) (note to self 'avoid in future')


the bezel insert is just a standard replacement thing done at service, the original is just a different one where the silver numeral print is a slightly fatter font.. its only really an issue to sort out if it had one of the more recent really skinny font ones on that are horrible.

[mixz1]

Originally Posted by jedly1

lol, sorry, a malteser is honeycombed snack covered in chocolate, if you strip the chocolate and cut one in half it looks like that type of marker so its a bit of a coloqialism :) (note to self 'avoid in future')


the bezel insert is just a standard replacement thing done at service, the original is just a different one where the silver numeral print is a slightly fatter font.. its only really an issue to sort out if it had one of the more recent really skinny font ones on that are horrible.

LOL myself. In spite of the fact I'm an ex-pat Yankee living in Cancun, I know what Maltesers are. In fact, if you go to http://www.howtoeatsweets.com/ and scroll down to the Maltesers illustration it makes your point perfectly. Thanks as well for the tip on the bezel fonts.

[mike]

As Jed said the dial is probably fine. Might be a little shrinkage on the indices exposing the plots. The hands look to be replacements.

[mixz1]

Originally Posted by mike

As Jed said the dial is probably fine. Might be a little shrinkage on the indices exposing the plots. The hands look to be replacements.

Thanks, Mike. It's too bad about the hands. I should have know better back then, but it's too late to do anything without spending more money. With regular servicing, I've spent many multiples of what I paid for it. I guess that's what you do with old cars and old watches that you value.

[mike]

Originally Posted by mixz1

Thanks, Mike. It's too bad about the hands. I should have know better back then, but it's too late to do anything without spending more money. With regular servicing, I've spent many multiples of what I paid for it. I guess that's what you do with old cars and old watches that you value.

I know exactly what you mean. I have several vintage pieces I bought new back in the day. I've spent multiples of their orginal cost on service.

Remember though these old pieces represent a special time in the history of Rolex and our lives. They are truely worth more than the sum of their parts.

[SLS]

Great looking 5513, as stated by the others, the dial is correct. I have a very similar Circa 1967 5513 that also has the "puffy" markers. You can source a set of tritium hands and period correct insert if you want to restore it to original. IMO, sounds like a watch with a great set of history and great memories, so either continue to wear it like you have for the past 43 years or restore it. For me, I might try to source the original pieces why they can still be found at a reasonable price, set them aside in a safe place, and continue to wear the watch the way it is.
Scott

[mixz1]

Originally Posted by SLS

Great looking 5513, as stated by the others, the dial is correct. I have a very similar Circa 1967 5513 that also has the "puffy" markers. You can source a set of tritium hands and period correct insert if you want to restore it to original. IMO, sounds like a watch with a great set of history and great memories, so either continue to wear it like you have for the past 43 years or restore it. For me, I might try to source the original pieces why they can still be found at a reasonable price, set them aside in a safe place, and continue to wear the watch the way it is.
Scott

Thanks for the advice and opinion, Scott. I'll try talking to the AD here in Cancun about sourcing a set of NOS hands before I go through the hassle of finding them in the US. The parts would have to be shipped via FedEx as mail here is very unreliable. That means 26% duty and more BS with customs. Of course I could also wait until my next trip north. I guess I'll begin the hunt tomorrow.

[Subfiend]

I have a '66 5513 with the same puffy markers. Your dial is original. Do NOT replace it.