5513 - am I having the matching dial?

[Love&Hate]

I have bought a 5513 with case serial number 3.5 and after doing some research I am now wondering if the dial is an original and matching dial? Watch with S/N 3.5 is definitely not gilt and most likely a serif / non serif dial? Photo attached - any advice is appreciated.

[swish77]

Dial is definitely not period correct for that serial number, and that dial wouldn't be correct for any Submariner. Best-case scenario is that it's refinished, and incorrectly as a feet-first gilt, which doesn't exist. Could just be fake/aftermarket and artificially aged to give it patina. Less important is that the insert is also not period correct, even if authentic.

Have you seen the movement?

[Love&Hate]

�� omg - I don’t have a photo of the movement on hand right now. What period does the insert relate to?

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Love&Hate

�� This is the only photo I have on hand right now. What period does the insert relate to?

It appears to be a thin-font service insert.

[Wahlberg]

Do you have the original listing or pictures?

[Dan S]

I'm wondering if the dial is really gilt, or just yellowed. If it's gilt, then yeah, it's a weird dial.

Edit: Actually, never mind. After close inspection, it's just a weird dial.

[Love&Hate]

Yes I am thinking if it is possible at all that it is not a gilt dial but a serif/no serif dial but then the patina somehow got damaged spreading around the dial causing the yellowish effect?

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Love&Hate

Yes I am thinking if it is possible at all that it is not a gilt dial but a serif/no serif dial but then the patina somehow got damaged spreading around the dial causing the yellowish effect?

However, it is not a serif or non-serif dial.

[mbc]

It actually looks like a Maxi I, but never seen that sort of discoloration..

[1665fan]

Looks like a badly damaged gilt to me

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by mbc

It actually looks like a Maxi I, but never seen that sort of discoloration..

IMO, the coronet is wrong for a Maxi I, and the position of "=" sign. Etc.

Originally Posted by 1665fan

Looks like a badly damaged gilt to me

Gilt would be meters-first, no?

[Dan S]

n/m (duplicate)

[herts9]

Originally Posted by 1665fan

Looks like a badly damaged gilt to me

yes, looks like water damage.


PSA: always remember kids, do your research before you buy

[mbc]

Originally Posted by Dan S

IMO, the coronet is wrong for a Maxi I, and the position of "=" sign. Etc.



Gilt would be meters-first, no?

Here’s a Maxi I from 5513mattedial


Looks a lot like this to me, but just my opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by mbc

Here’s a Maxi I from 5513mattedial


Looks a lot like this to me, but just my opinion

The coronet looks quite different to me, but probably you have more experience. I've not owned a Maxi I personally.

[MrChamfers]

Even a badly damaged gilt would make this watch worth 20k plus.
Maybe he got a deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by MrChamfers

Even a badly damaged gilt would make this watch worth 20k plus.
Maybe he got a deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s no such thing as a feet-first gilt dial

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

There’s no such thing as a feet-first gilt dial

Exactly. Finally a sensible response to a well trotted 5513 dial variation question. It’s fake

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

There’s no such thing as a feet-first gilt dial

This. Hope the OP can return the watch.

Sad that we see so many people checking out their watches here only AFTER purchasing them. That's not how it's done. We could have saved the guy a whole lot of hurt.

Due diligence BEFORE purchasing, folks.

[alwayshere]

100% shady seller - the bezel is a service insert with a clearly "aged" tritium dot. The whole thing is manufactured to try and deceive someone.