ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

FrogmanFreak · 24 January 2012, 07:09 AM

Gentlemen,

I'd like to seek your expert opinion on this 5513 which I've been offered. Your thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks.

gregorpal · 24 January 2012, 11:01 AM

More pics will be needed for a better opinion. Dial looks fine to me. Look carefully before you buy one, there are plenty of nice 5513 specimenes out here.

Beaumont Miller II · 24 January 2012, 11:31 AM

I am not Board Certified in Rolexology, I but will be happy to give my observations based on this one picture:

1. With regard to the dial: Meters first 5513 Submariner dial. It is consistent with other meters first Sub dials that I have seen from the mid to late 60's. The lume plots appear to be free from flaking, the hash marks all go to the edge of the dial, no obvious wear to the dial like spotting or water damage, and the hands match the lume plots reasonably well. The lume plots are more flat and less puffy than on mine from '67, but both are common.
2. With regard to the case: I like the crown guards...pretty even top and bottom, all four lugs appear to be pretty even in size, I can make out the chamfers in some of the lugs and they appear nice.
3. With regard to the insert: I am not great with inserts, but the pearl matches the hands and the dial and that is a plus. I would say insert may have been replaced...not a big deal. Some people charge $200.00 for the pearl alone.

There are not any pics of the serial number. So, I will assume the dial is correct for the watch. You have to keep in mind that this watch is probably about 45 years old. From the top view it looks like there is wear consistent with age, and if there are no surprises on the sides of the case, I would say a good looking and honest watch. If the price was right and I was in the market, I would probably be a buyer.

springer · 24 January 2012, 11:43 AM

It is not a bad looking specimen, not bad at all. Beaumont Miller summed it up fairly well!

Michael M. · 24 January 2012, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

I am not Board Certified in Rolexology, I but will be happy to give my observations based on this one picture:

1. With regard to the dial: Meters first 5513 Submariner dial. It is consistent with other meters first Sub dials that I have seen from the mid to late 60's. The lume plots appear to be free from flaking, the hash marks all go to the edge of the dial, no obvious wear to the dial like spotting or water damage, and the hands match the lume plots reasonably well. The lume plots are more flat and less puffy than on mine from '67, but both are common.
2. With regard to the case: I like the crown guards...pretty even top and bottom, all four lugs appear to be pretty even in size, I can make out the chamfers in some of the lugs and they appear nice.
3. With regard to the insert: I am not great with inserts, but the pearl matches the hands and the dial and that is a plus. I would say insert may have been replaced...not a big deal. Some people charge $200.00 for the pearl alone.

There are not any pics of the serial number. So, I will assume the dial is correct for the watch. You have to keep in mind that this watch is probably about 45 years old. From the top view it looks like there is wear consistent with age, and if there are no surprises on the sides of the case, I would say a
good looking and honest watch. If the price was right and I was in the market, I would probably be a buyer.

I agree John

matt4hand · 24 January 2012, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael M.

I agree John

X3 spot on. Looks like a nice piece! I would sport it

.

HL65 · 24 January 2012, 12:05 PM

X4! Spot on and very nice example.

jedly1 · 24 January 2012, 12:32 PM

X5

cruvon · 24 January 2012, 12:40 PM

X..

FrogmanFreak · 25 January 2012, 06:53 AM

Thank you,
Thank you all, gentlemen.

FMF

Robbyvm · 25 January 2012, 07:03 AM

Great observation based on 1 pic !
my only remark is about the 12, 6 & 9 o'clock hour markers... they seem a bit sloppy

GeoGio Greece · 25 January 2012, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruvon

X..

Bright !

Bravo

Puffy · 25 January 2012, 08:14 AM

see if the caseback matches

other than that looks like a goer

TattooedGQ · 25 January 2012, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbyvm

Great observation based on 1 pic !
my only remark is about the 12, 6 & 9 o'clock hour markers... they seem a bit sloppy

That's what I was thinking, but there are WAY more qualified guys on here than me to say its OK!!

Ear Pain · 25 January 2012, 01:31 PM

Looks good Euj..

Matte dial, even patina...whats more to like??

David

Grab it quick...

24 January 2012, 07:09 AM	#1
FrogmanFreak "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: - Location: London, UK Watch: Breitling Emergenc Posts: 36	Need help ... urgently ... Gentlemen, I'd like to seek your expert opinion on this 5513 which I've been offered. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks.

24 January 2012, 11:31 AM	#3
Beaumont Miller II "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,615	I am not Board Certified in Rolexology, I but will be happy to give my observations based on this one picture: 1. With regard to the dial: Meters first 5513 Submariner dial. It is consistent with other meters first Sub dials that I have seen from the mid to late 60's. The lume plots appear to be free from flaking, the hash marks all go to the edge of the dial, no obvious wear to the dial like spotting or water damage, and the hands match the lume plots reasonably well. The lume plots are more flat and less puffy than on mine from '67, but both are common. 2. With regard to the case: I like the crown guards...pretty even top and bottom, all four lugs appear to be pretty even in size, I can make out the chamfers in some of the lugs and they appear nice. 3. With regard to the insert: I am not great with inserts, but the pearl matches the hands and the dial and that is a plus. I would say insert may have been replaced...not a big deal. Some people charge $200.00 for the pearl alone. There are not any pics of the serial number. So, I will assume the dial is correct for the watch. You have to keep in mind that this watch is probably about 45 years old. From the top view it looks like there is wear consistent with age, and if there are no surprises on the sides of the case, I would say a good looking and honest watch. If the price was right and I was in the market, I would probably be a buyer. __________________

24 January 2012, 11:43 AM	#4
springer 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: jP Location: Texas Watch: GMT-MASTER Posts: 17,197	It is not a bad looking specimen, not bad at all. Beaumont Miller summed it up fairly well! __________________ Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics.

24 January 2012, 12:05 PM	#7
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,400	X4! Spot on and very nice example. __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

25 January 2012, 08:14 AM	#13
Puffy "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 12,485	see if the caseback matches other than that looks like a goer __________________ Fine Quality is Long Remembered After the Pain of Spending Money is Forgotten

24 January 2012, 11:01 AM	#2
gregorpal "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Myplaceintheworld Posts: 335	More pics will be needed for a better opinion. Dial looks fine to me. Look carefully before you buy one, there are plenty of nice 5513 specimenes out here.

24 January 2012, 12:32 PM	#8
jedly1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: mel(oz)/Yorks(uk) Posts: 1,917	X5

25 January 2012, 06:53 AM	#10
FrogmanFreak "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: - Location: London, UK Watch: Breitling Emergenc Posts: 36	Thank you, Thank you all, gentlemen. FMF

25 January 2012, 07:03 AM	#11
Robbyvm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,239	Great observation based on 1 pic ! my only remark is about the 12, 6 & 9 o'clock hour markers... they seem a bit sloppy

25 January 2012, 01:31 PM	#15
Ear Pain "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: David Location: London Posts: 318	Looks good Euj.. Matte dial, even patina...whats more to like?? David Grab it quick...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)