ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Haywood_Milton · 4 March 2015, 09:37 PM

I have no connection with the sale :

http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/au...5-a45000fa07ce

Might be watching though !

Haywood Milton, UK

Vincent65 · 4 March 2015, 10:04 PM

nice - original seconds hand?

Haywood_Milton · 4 March 2015, 10:33 PM

Not original seconds hand.

Curious brushing to case-back, but do not be put off by that.

HM

Vincent65 · 4 March 2015, 10:41 PM

As I thought. yes, I saw that on the case-back as well. Looks pretty good otherwise. I'd take it for £10K!

Vincent65 · 4 March 2015, 10:43 PM

Those fixed strap bars have seen some action!

traf · 4 March 2015, 11:10 PM

Wow Beautiful!! 😍😍

Sent from my  iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

JohnBaker3 · 5 March 2015, 12:22 AM

Shouldn't the bezel insert have minute markers around the entire insert?

Haywood_Milton · 5 March 2015, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBaker3

Shouldn't the bezel insert have minute markers around the entire insert?

Bien sur. It will have had when first issued.

HM

fmc000 · 5 March 2015, 01:56 AM

They forgot a "0" at the end of the price :-)

The Balance Wheel · 5 March 2015, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

Bien sur. It will have had when first issued.

HM

Weren't there 5513 milsubs that didn't have the fully-graduated bezel?

Haywood_Milton · 5 March 2015, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Balance Wheel

Weren't there 5513 milsubs that didn't have the fully-graduated bezel?

No, period.

There were are are lots of owners of 5513 military issue Submariners with replacement, civilian 15' bezels ( including your correspondent here ) who wish this could correctly be claimed to be the case, but it is not so.

Before anyone asks, the position is the same with sword hands, too.

Haywood Milton, UK

marcello pisani · 5 March 2015, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Balance Wheel

Weren't there 5513 milsubs that didn't have the fully-graduated bezel?

from Rolex with the so called " continous bezel " as you can see from this picture taken from UK Ministry Of Defence Standards ( DEF STAN 66-4 part1 made in 1966 ) :

dysondiver · 5 March 2015, 02:54 AM

i have a feeling that 10k wont own it.

andromeda160 · 5 March 2015, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dysondiver

i have a feeling that 10k wont own it.

Lol I'm sure the hand set w/ the wrong seconds hand would sell for the estimate.

Rameez-Q · 5 March 2015, 07:33 AM

Is it genuine? Should the bezel not have minute markers all the way round?

Seems a little too cheap for a very rare watch

jdmi32 · 5 March 2015, 07:49 AM

Any guesses as to how much this will go for? I just know that it will definitely be out of my price range.

Daytona4130 · 5 March 2015, 08:04 AM

That's a cool piece. Thanks for sharing Haywood

Haywood_Milton · 5 March 2015, 08:24 AM

I reserve my judgement on this watch, pending further investigation.

HM

aaamax · 5 March 2015, 07:18 PM

First off, there is a shortage of angles in the photos shown… No side shots??
Something about the engraving looks off from the little of it that they show.
This watch feels doctored to me and absolutely would not even consider it unless I was there in person… buyer beware.

scooba · 6 March 2015, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

I reserve my judgement on this watch, pending further investigation.

HM

Hi Haywood,

Will you be making a bid ? ,If this was correct what would be a safe amount to offer.

I think some refer to this as 5515 , I spoke to the Auction house they said they have seen similar go for 30 but had heard of some making 100 k ,It is on the front of the Auction catalogue .

Haywood_Milton · 6 March 2015, 01:10 AM

I wasn't going to bid under any circumstances --- or I probably wouldn't have drawn such attention to the watch !

If ( key word ! ) the watch were a correct 5513/5517 --- but with civilian bezel and missing seconds hand as it is -- then it could still have been a £50k+ watch in my mind.

However....

Someone I shall not name here has called the watch out as being incorrect, having seen it in circulation previously. I respect that person and, not having had the watch in my hands as I would really need to, I now simply watch for further details. I did raise an eyebrow at the curious brushing over the case-back, and if I can get a minute I'd like to compare some of my dials with the best photo available from the auction catalogue, albeit taken through scratched acrylic glass. Nothing beats having a watch in your hands and moving it under a 10x ( ideally against some comparisons from the same batch, if you are lucky to own a few, ahem ).

Under these circumstances I would, at least unless more definitive comment is available, keep your powder dry.

It is Jed who is trying to coin the phrase "5515" to refer to a true double ref 5513/5517. I find this appellation "average" in more ways than one and choose not to pander to an audience which struggles with the basics of what truly is a 5513, a 5513/5517 and a 5517. The watch nowhere has "5515" on it and to me it is a stretch of a misnomer, but I'm not going to fall out about what someone calls a watch.

I do wonder if we might see a true 5515 Submariner. One has to imagine that there might be something in a sequence which we know contains 5512, 5513, 5514.....5517 !

I would rate a full spec, double ref 5513/5517 on a par with a full-blown 5517 in similar condition.

Haywood

marcello pisani · 6 March 2015, 01:56 AM

ciao HM,
I would pay some attention to broad arrow shape and also to casenumbers fonts in the backinside ... not to mention number " 5517 " fonts in the lug back ....
LOL LOL LOL

Johny · 6 March 2015, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcello pisani

from Rolex with the so called " continous bezel " as you can see from this picture taken from UK Ministry Of Defence Standards ( DEF STAN 66-4 part1 made in 1966 ) :

great post Marcello.

marcello pisani · 6 March 2015, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johny

great post Marcello.

1971 version of the same DEFSTAN code :

marcello pisani · 6 March 2015, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcello pisani

ciao HM,
I would pay some attention to broad arrow shape and also to casenumbers fonts in the backinside ... not to mention number " 5517 " fonts in the lug back ....
LOL LOL LOL

back production time is not exactly the one I expect to see in this batch of milsubs ....

marcello pisani · 6 March 2015, 03:41 AM

a little comparison between 644/77 ( first pic ) and another double reference ( 7YY/77 ) :

just note the stunning difference in the numbers " 5 " ....

Vincent65 · 6 March 2015, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcello pisani

1971 version of the same DEFSTAN code :

that one (case) looks very 'Omega' SM 300-ish

marcello pisani · 6 March 2015, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent65

that one looks very 'Omega' SM 300-ish

a FF Blancpain case !

Vincent65 · 6 March 2015, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcello pisani

a FF Blancpain case !

OK, thanks - quite similar, aren't they!

jedly1 · 6 March 2015, 07:17 AM

nobody else needs to call it a 5515 but i and several others do., (and it gets used especially in the short hand world of instagram)..but it has simplified a lot the education you have to give many collectors and the use of a separate and distinct name for the model has in my experience allowed a lot of people to get clear in their head that there are in fact three models ...the confusion , even amongst well schooled collectors, over the existence of three distinct models i find staggering given all that has been written about milsubs but it exists in almost every person i speak to...which is a lot !!! and i find the term double reference , whilst descriptive actual just adds to the confusion.

personally i am happy to 'pander' to people who know less than me in an effort to educate and help people realise the distinctions, especially when language barriers also come into play, anything that makes the subject a little clearer to understand is good in my book , especially as in some cases i know collectors who have paid up way over the top for a double reference model believing it to be a 5517, and dealers that have been slow to point out the distinction.

the double reference is simply a 5513 with an extra engraving on it , and is recorded at rolex geneva for manufacture as a model 5513 ( though noted for delivery on the packing notes as a 5517) ...so it is more rare than a simple 5513 ...but less rare than a 5517 which is how the market sees it given there is a difference in pricing and desirability between the 5517 and the 5515 measured in many, many thousands.

the double reference it is looking like was produced in approaching 200 examples...the 5517 maybe as many as 150. ( the 5513 about 700)

the photos supplied for the nisbets watch show exactly what it is.

ps. there is no model 5515 recorded as manufactured by rolex geneva.

4 March 2015, 09:37 PM	#1
Haywood_Milton "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Real Name: Yes, it is ! Location: Cheshire & Mersey Watch: Military issue Sub Posts: 1,319	Double ref mil sub at auction I have no connection with the sale : http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/au...5-a45000fa07ce Might be watching though ! Haywood Milton, UK

5 March 2015, 12:22 AM	#7
JohnBaker3 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Real Name: John Baker III Location: Spring,Texas Watch: 1971 Red Sub Posts: 2,221	Shouldn't the bezel insert have minute markers around the entire insert? __________________ As I've grown older, I've learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing off everyone is a piece of cake.

5 March 2015, 07:33 AM	#15
Rameez-Q "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: UK Watch: Rolex Day Date, Posts: 666	Is it genuine? Should the bezel not have minute markers all the way round? Seems a little too cheap for a very rare watch __________________ Vintage, Vintage & more vintage!

5 March 2015, 07:18 PM	#19
aaamax "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Sweden of yore Posts: 483	First off, there is a shortage of angles in the photos shown… No side shots?? Something about the engraving looks off from the little of it that they show. This watch feels doctored to me and absolutely would not even consider it unless I was there in person… buyer beware. __________________ * * * -Friends Don't Let Friends RSC-

6 March 2015, 03:41 AM	#26
marcello pisani "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: italy Posts: 991	about number 5517 here is .. a little comparison between 644/77 ( first pic ) and another double reference ( 7YY/77 ) : just note the stunning difference in the numbers " 5 " ....

4 March 2015, 10:04 PM	#2
Vincent65 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Switzerland Posts: 14,293	nice - original seconds hand?

4 March 2015, 10:33 PM	#3
Haywood_Milton "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Real Name: Yes, it is ! Location: Cheshire & Mersey Watch: Military issue Sub Posts: 1,319	Not original seconds hand. Curious brushing to case-back, but do not be put off by that. HM

4 March 2015, 10:41 PM	#4
Vincent65 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Switzerland Posts: 14,293	As I thought. yes, I saw that on the case-back as well. Looks pretty good otherwise. I'd take it for £10K!

4 March 2015, 10:43 PM	#5
Vincent65 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Switzerland Posts: 14,293	Those fixed strap bars have seen some action!

4 March 2015, 11:10 PM	#6
traf "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Real Name: dave Location: miami Watch: me ride bikes Posts: 1,938	Wow Beautiful!! 😍😍 Sent from my  iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

5 March 2015, 01:56 AM	#9
fmc000 Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: Fabio Location: Como - Italy Posts: 4,811	They forgot a "0" at the end of the price :-)

5 March 2015, 02:54 AM	#13
dysondiver "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: tom Location: northern ireland Watch: my fins Posts: 10,063	i have a feeling that 10k wont own it.

5 March 2015, 07:49 AM	#16
jdmi32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Real Name: Ky Location: Bay Area, CA Watch: 16570 Posts: 2,362	Any guesses as to how much this will go for? I just know that it will definitely be out of my price range.

5 March 2015, 08:04 AM	#17
Daytona4130 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Real Name: Jack Location: 'Murica Watch: HBO:) Posts: 1,363	That's a cool piece. Thanks for sharing Haywood

5 March 2015, 08:24 AM	#18
Haywood_Milton "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Real Name: Yes, it is ! Location: Cheshire & Mersey Watch: Military issue Sub Posts: 1,319	I reserve my judgement on this watch, pending further investigation. HM

6 March 2015, 01:10 AM	#21
Haywood_Milton "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Real Name: Yes, it is ! Location: Cheshire & Mersey Watch: Military issue Sub Posts: 1,319	I wasn't going to bid under any circumstances --- or I probably wouldn't have drawn such attention to the watch ! If ( key word ! ) the watch were a correct 5513/5517 --- but with civilian bezel and missing seconds hand as it is -- then it could still have been a £50k+ watch in my mind. However.... Someone I shall not name here has called the watch out as being incorrect, having seen it in circulation previously. I respect that person and, not having had the watch in my hands as I would really need to, I now simply watch for further details. I did raise an eyebrow at the curious brushing over the case-back, and if I can get a minute I'd like to compare some of my dials with the best photo available from the auction catalogue, albeit taken through scratched acrylic glass. Nothing beats having a watch in your hands and moving it under a 10x ( ideally against some comparisons from the same batch, if you are lucky to own a few, ahem ). Under these circumstances I would, at least unless more definitive comment is available, keep your powder dry. It is Jed who is trying to coin the phrase "5515" to refer to a true double ref 5513/5517. I find this appellation "average" in more ways than one and choose not to pander to an audience which struggles with the basics of what truly is a 5513, a 5513/5517 and a 5517. The watch nowhere has "5515" on it and to me it is a stretch of a misnomer, but I'm not going to fall out about what someone calls a watch. I do wonder if we might see a true 5515 Submariner. One has to imagine that there might be something in a sequence which we know contains 5512, 5513, 5514.....5517 ! I would rate a full spec, double ref 5513/5517 on a par with a full-blown 5517 in similar condition. Haywood

6 March 2015, 01:56 AM	#22
marcello pisani "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: italy Posts: 991	ciao HM, I would pay some attention to broad arrow shape and also to casenumbers fonts in the backinside ... not to mention number " 5517 " fonts in the lug back .... LOL LOL LOL

6 March 2015, 07:17 AM	#30
jedly1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: mel(oz)/Yorks(uk) Posts: 1,917	nobody else needs to call it a 5515 but i and several others do., (and it gets used especially in the short hand world of instagram)..but it has simplified a lot the education you have to give many collectors and the use of a separate and distinct name for the model has in my experience allowed a lot of people to get clear in their head that there are in fact three models ...the confusion , even amongst well schooled collectors, over the existence of three distinct models i find staggering given all that has been written about milsubs but it exists in almost every person i speak to...which is a lot !!! and i find the term double reference , whilst descriptive actual just adds to the confusion. personally i am happy to 'pander' to people who know less than me in an effort to educate and help people realise the distinctions, especially when language barriers also come into play, anything that makes the subject a little clearer to understand is good in my book , especially as in some cases i know collectors who have paid up way over the top for a double reference model believing it to be a 5517, and dealers that have been slow to point out the distinction. the double reference is simply a 5513 with an extra engraving on it , and is recorded at rolex geneva for manufacture as a model 5513 ( though noted for delivery on the packing notes as a 5517) ...so it is more rare than a simple 5513 ...but less rare than a 5517 which is how the market sees it given there is a difference in pricing and desirability between the 5517 and the 5515 measured in many, many thousands. the double reference it is looking like was produced in approaching 200 examples...the 5517 maybe as many as 150. ( the 5513 about 700) the photos supplied for the nisbets watch show exactly what it is. ps. there is no model 5515 recorded as manufactured by rolex geneva.

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