what to do? Rolex 6262 Daytona or DRSD

[DadsWatch72]

Originally Posted by jedly1

I think I follow what you are trying to say, the simple answer sometimes is that ones with a bevelled style original edge provide a bit of an optical illusion and if you actually put half a dozen watches on a table the ones that look fatter and square cut often aren't when you put them next to an unpolished orginal but with rgards to the one you show that you say should be fatter, obviously that isn't neccessairly so, width will depend on how many services / polishes etc, what we are talking about is the correct and original STYLE of polishing, but if that had had three and the othEr only ne then obviously it would be thinner!!

You can't pull up diiferent watches that have been serviced and compare lug widths when you have no idea how many services or depths if dings had to be removed etc. What is beyond doubt is the correct and original style as per the nos examples shown.

I see what your saying about an optical illusion. Here is a watch that you posted that is basically new. You said it had never been polished and worn only 2 or 3 times and then put in a safe. The lugs should be larger than any DRSD Mark IV lugs that doesn't have that bevel ie.....a DRSD without/missing/polished/worn etc. the bevel. Is that safe to say?

ps. Is that bracelet a 93150?

[DadsWatch72]

Here is a crude drawing of two lugs of the same model/year (I know its bad). Example with width A is of a lug with no bevel. Since you say it came with a bevel then we can assume it is worn/polished off. Example with width B is of a never worn perfect example just like the DRSD picture right above this post.

If width A is wider than width B then there is no chance that it ever came with a bevel that large.

We can also say that if width B is more narrow than width A then it had more medal at one time to equal width A.

If width B is larger than width A then we can say width A has been worn/polished.

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by DadsWatch72

I see what your saying about an optical illusion. Here is a watch that you posted that is basically new. You said it had never been polished and worn only 2 or 3 times and then put in a safe. The lugs should be larger than any DRSD Mark IV lugs that doesn't have that bevel ie.....a DRSD without/missing/polished/worn etc. the bevel. Is that safe to say?

ps. Is that bracelet a 93150?

yes , mostly except ,

a. and here's is the interesting part, cases weren't robot finished back then, so in other nos we have seen there have Been caliper measurements taken and quite often there is variation in width as new from the factory between all four lugs

b the angle of polish to the side elevation

c. The equally important polish to the top surface of the lug which will also reduce the bevel

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by DadsWatch72

Here is a crude drawing of two lugs of the same model/year (I know its bad). Example with width A is of a lug with no bevel. Since you say it came with a bevel then we can assume it is worn/polished off. Example with width B is of a never worn perfect example just like the DRSD picture right above this post.

If width A is wider than width B then there is no chance that it ever came with a bevel that large. P

We can also say that if width B is more narrow than width A then it had more medal at one time to equal width A.

If width B is larger than width A then we can say width A has been worn/polished.

If only it were that easy, you've got to thing in three dimensions, because not only is the case polished on the side if needed which removes the size of the bevel, it is more commonly polished on the top surface to remove dinks, so the profile of the case also has to be examined. If polish comes from
above the full width of lug is retained. Im sure on your travls you'll have seen by now examples that head on look to have nice fat lugs, then you jold em up in profile only to find the lug pin hole virtually at the edge of the case !!

Add into that that often either surface can be polished at an angled plan

[jedly1]

And sorry, yes that's a 93150. The 93150 ( and the 78360) were introduced mid 1972 to replace the 9315 (and 7836) which had proved to be pretty poor both in build quality and design. You evn find some on 70/71 maufactur that were retro fitted at point of sale by dealers as a sales technique.

[CaveDiver]

Originally Posted by jedly1

And sorry, yes that's a 93150. The 93150 ( and the 78360) were introduced mid 1972 to replace the 9315 (and 7836) which had proved to be pretty poor both in build quality and design. You evn find some on 70/71 maufactur that were retro fitted at point of sale by dealers as a sales technique.

That date is interesting. The 7206 and C&I version was still made at that time. When did the 7836 hit the market?
Thanks

[jedly1]

yep remember Rolex usa is a seperate company to rolex rest of world, and continued to make its own rivet braclets 7206 ( which it had been doing for a while).. think the latest i've seen is 76 and mostly fitted to 1655's and 1675's.

The first 7836 and 9315 hit circa 68/9.

[jedly1]

equally bad drawing time :) - i hope there is a prize !!!!



ok so think in cross section ( admittedly squared up for ease of comparison and drawing) but in relaity the case side are angled slightly anyway which makes all this even harder to observe.

if a case is polished only in top plane as shown in A, it appears to have a small bevel and full width, if anything it will appear to be bigger because of the optical illusion.

if a case is slightly polsihed in top and side plane it will compound to reduce the bevel, but probably appear to the same remaining lug size because of the optical illsuion.

if only or predominantly polished on the side it will lose bevel and should look thinner.


now thats the easy one, if the actualy angle of polish isn't taken off flat and is TILTED to retain metal, all of the above will be over emphasised and it will take the most amazing trained eye to observe it.

the top polish only has to be at a faint angle and the bevel will go, and from the side elevation the eye will struggle to observe any reduction in height and of course need no reduction in width.

I really, really, really don't want to sound like a pompous Pr*ck here but this is why this can't be evaluated and observed from scans on line, this kind of observation comes from handling hundreds, if not thousands, of watches and being anal enough to look at it, and from discussing it with the guys on the floor who work in the case department polishing and refinishing all day long!!!

the trouble with scans is that they are in the 2d and the slightest alteration in angle of scan even by the faintest fraction can create illusions.


as i have previously said, the original case had a three way finish top, side, bevel... the service centres job is made a HELL of a lot easier if they only finish in two, top and side, as the perfect bevel polsih is a bloody hard thing to do and takes special jigs and equiptment, practive and time. it is also worth mentioning that Rolex UK and Rolex geneva, are the only two i KNOW that have dedicated case refinsihing department, so for example in australia, the whole watch is done from top to bottom by a single watchmaker, movt, polish, test etc , whereas in the uk/geneva the case goes to the case department specialists and the movement goes to the moevemnt guys.

[SLS]

Originally Posted by jdc

I hope Jedly is the same guy from VRF, if so I believe he has a lot of experience of vintage Rolex and can benefit us here on TRF

Could not agree more, welcome Jedly!

Scott

[swatty]

Great info Jedly, great to have you here

[jdc]

Originally Posted by DadsWatch72

I do respect others opinions and I also have my own opinions. Both should be respected equally. I'm not making an attack on anyone or their opinions. I am merely talkin watches. I think thats how we all learn from each other.

And to comment on your comment in regard to my watch.....they seem to like it in the Vintage Rolex Forum and it is in their dial archive.

Dad's you have a beautiful watch and anyone here would be proud to own it, but thats not the point I was making

Regarding opinions if I want legal advice I tend to go to a lawyer and not try and gain opinions from my mates. Some peoples opinions carry more weight than others in my book, but as you say everyone has a right to their own point of view.
You do make this forum a much brighter place

[DadsWatch72]

Originally Posted by jdc

Dad's you have a beautiful watch and anyone here would be proud to own it, but thats not the point I was making

Regarding opinions if I want legal advice I tend to go to a lawyer and not try and gain opinions from my mates. Some peoples opinions carry more weight than others in my book, but as you say everyone has a right to their own point of view.
You do make this forum a much brighter place

Thanks, I'm glad to be here. There is never a dull day on TRF.

[onkyo]

Originally Posted by jedly1

equally bad drawing time :) - i hope there is a prize !!!!



ok so think in cross section ( admittedly squared up for ease of comparison and drawing) but in relaity the case side are angled slightly anyway which makes all this even harder to observe.

if a case is polished only in top plane as shown in A, it appears to have a small bevel and full width, if anything it will appear to be bigger because of the optical illusion.

if a case is slightly polsihed in top and side plane it will compound to reduce the bevel, but probably appear to the same remaining lug size because of the optical illsuion.

if only or predominantly polished on the side it will lose bevel and should look thinner.


now thats the easy one, if the actualy angle of polish isn't taken off flat and is TILTED to retain metal, all of the above will be over emphasised and it will take the most amazing trained eye to observe it.

the top polish only has to be at a faint angle and the bevel will go, and from the side elevation the eye will struggle to observe any reduction in height and of course need no reduction in width.

I really, really, really don't want to sound like a pompous Pr*ck here but this is why this can't be evaluated and observed from scans on line, this kind of observation comes from handling hundreds, if not thousands, of watches and being anal enough to look at it, and from discussing it with the guys on the floor who work in the case department polishing and refinishing all day long!!!

the trouble with scans is that they are in the 2d and the slightest alteration in angle of scan even by the faintest fraction can create illusions.


as i have previously said, the original case had a three way finish top, side, bevel... the service centres job is made a HELL of a lot easier if they only finish in two, top and side, as the perfect bevel polsih is a bloody hard thing to do and takes special jigs and equiptment, practive and time. it is also worth mentioning that Rolex UK and Rolex geneva, are the only two i KNOW that have dedicated case refinsihing department, so for example in australia, the whole watch is done from top to bottom by a single watchmaker, movt, polish, test etc , whereas in the uk/geneva the case goes to the case department specialists and the movement goes to the moevemnt guys.

Fantastic information here Jed.... thanks for the posting.

[DadsWatch72]

Originally Posted by jedly1

equally bad drawing time :) - i hope there is a prize !!!!



ok so think in cross section ( admittedly squared up for ease of comparison and drawing) but in relaity the case side are angled slightly anyway which makes all this even harder to observe.

if a case is polished only in top plane as shown in A, it appears to have a small bevel and full width, if anything it will appear to be bigger because of the optical illusion.

if a case is slightly polsihed in top and side plane it will compound to reduce the bevel, but probably appear to the same remaining lug size because of the optical illsuion.

if only or predominantly polished on the side it will lose bevel and should look thinner.


now thats the easy one, if the actualy angle of polish isn't taken off flat and is TILTED to retain metal, all of the above will be over emphasised and it will take the most amazing trained eye to observe it.

the top polish only has to be at a faint angle and the bevel will go, and from the side elevation the eye will struggle to observe any reduction in height and of course need no reduction in width.

I really, really, really don't want to sound like a pompous Pr*ck here but this is why this can't be evaluated and observed from scans on line, this kind of observation comes from handling hundreds, if not thousands, of watches and being anal enough to look at it, and from discussing it with the guys on the floor who work in the case department polishing and refinishing all day long!!!

the trouble with scans is that they are in the 2d and the slightest alteration in angle of scan even by the faintest fraction can create illusions.


as i have previously said, the original case had a three way finish top, side, bevel... the service centres job is made a HELL of a lot easier if they only finish in two, top and side, as the perfect bevel polsih is a bloody hard thing to do and takes special jigs and equiptment, practive and time. it is also worth mentioning that Rolex UK and Rolex geneva, are the only two i KNOW that have dedicated case refinsihing department, so for example in australia, the whole watch is done from top to bottom by a single watchmaker, movt, polish, test etc , whereas in the uk/geneva the case goes to the case department specialists and the movement goes to the moevemnt guys.

Your pictures are much better than mine. I do understand exactly what your saying. I have never noticed on any original a bevel that extreme before. Even in Rolex time period correct booklets and magazine advertisments which show a side views of the case I don't see it. I guess I will have to make a point to keep my eyes peeled for the bevel now. Thanks for all your information. I wish I could find a close up of these pictures.

[DadsWatch72]

Originally Posted by jedly1

yes , mostly except ,

a. and here's is the interesting part, cases weren't robot finished back then, so in other nos we have seen there have Been caliper measurements taken and quite often there is variation in width as new from the factory between all four lugs

b the angle of polish to the side elevation

c. The equally important polish to the top surface of the lug which will also reduce the bevel

This is an interesting point. It's amazing to me how precise all their watches are in design and function. It's hard to believe there would be such variation in the cases. I'm not saying it's not possible or true...I'm just saying I wouldn't expect that from Rolex.

[CaveDiver]

Originally Posted by DadsWatch72

This is an interesting point. It's amazing to me how precise all their watches are in design and function. It's hard to believe there would be such variation in the cases. I'm not saying it's not possible or true...I'm just saying I wouldn't expect that from Rolex.

I have not seen this myself. Personally, watches from Japan seem to be more consistent from this time frame. However, I do not kmnow much only my small sample of observation.

[WILSDORF]

Its nice to have Jed on the forum a huge wealth of knowledge as you will discover despite the fact he cant draw too good and he's escaped Gordon Brown for which I will be forever envious

Dads I love your watch I have been chasing a far inferior worn one for months as yet without success maybe I should settle for a nice white instead which Martyn is keeping warm

Kindest Regards
Tim 'TKH'

[maverick]

Wow, this is the longest thread on the bevel of the case I have seen. I read one that was very similar in the past.

Some of the watches in this thread were not polished by Rolex. There are or were three lapping/polishing machines in the USA. One at each service center. These are the exact machines Rolex uses at the factory to polish the cases. This is one reason it is said, "No one can polish a case like Rolex can."

The case is set in a jig and the machine goes around the case. I suppose it can be regulated for a bevel. My observations are that the USA machines do not make a large bevel and the ones out of the USA may make the bevel slightly more noticeable. I believe we are talking maybe a 1000th of an inch or so and a lot to do over nothing IHMO.

BTW, I have a USA expandable bracelet and it is stamped 1/64, no other numbers present.

Humm, I seem to have forgotten the original post. Now what was the original subject? LMAO =) maverick

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by DadsWatch72

This is an interesting point. It's amazing to me how precise all their watches are in design and function. It's hard to believe there would be such variation in the cases. I'm not saying it's not possible or true...I'm just saying I wouldn't expect that from Rolex.

well showing the waves booklet opens it up a bit more .

1. there is some serious discussion taken place over the years regarding Rolex' s booklet and publicity shots, one being that they were actually artists impressions, the other being they were original shots just heavily airburshed and touched up ( as they didnt have photoshop, what is clear is you dont get anything like the quality of resoltuion we have ( just pop a loupe on and you can see the pixels they are that big !!

2. using the waves booklet you've shown the bevel is clearly there, and its good beacuse we both have one in our hands, the watch is slightly off to the left side. note the darken line down the right side, thats the bevel, but without a clean light refelection on it.

Turn the page an look at the 5513 and the 1680 which have cleaner light hitting them on the bevel and its a lot more noticeable ( note where their is darkened bits hitting it it doesnt show as well just like on the 1665.

now turn the page again and look at the 1680/8 on pgae 5 shot at an angle, note the bevel is a lot more noticeable.

here lies the problem, shot completely head/side on and in the wrong lighting it wont scream out at you, even on a factory original watch, to be honest thats even more so on your wrist. The shots where it looks huge and noticeable are shot on modern hi res cameras' at the right angle and with good light to higlight and make a point of it.


3. so more interestingly, look at the 1665 upright image again look at the top left lug and then the bottom left lug, massive difference in width... factory anomaly on a brand new watch or just optical illusion from a slightly angled back watch... 40 years on who is to say ???? thats why using internet photos or even rolex original photos for this kind of thing doesn t make it very easy, unless they were specifgically and carefully taken to higlight something...

[jedly1]

good excuse to post one of my favourite images, the black and white is cleaner somehow. That must havebeen shot absolutely dead on to superimpose the benchely phot. look how even then the v bevel only pops out at you in the shot where the light hits it right, on the other lugs notice how it varies depending on lighting and shadow etc....

[jedly1]

sorry DD2 misread your post, thought it was your waves booklet ....

'I wish I could find a close up of these pictures' - here you go bud we aim to please...


(and Mav, remember when we used to go on for days about stuff like this, back before people started having a go at each other every time they opened their mouths... :( )









and to higlight the other points i made for those who dont have the booklet :

the difference in lugs on the new seadweller





the 5513 and the 1680 in steel, also bearing in mind that the sub case is a lot thinner so the angle of bevel is shallower and therefore that bit more observable.





the 1680/8 in gold where a lot of the reflection issues are reduced ...






if that leaves you in any doubt what the original factory finish was at the period i really dont know what else i can say. All i would ask is that if you get a watch serviced by the very hard working and dedicated guys at bexley or geneva and it has the bevel on, please dont knock it as incorrect or butchered, or poor workmanship when it is exactly the opposite - it is fact excellent workmanship and a factory finish..... whether you like it or not is a different matter :)


and on that note i sign off, heading down the beach for a couple hours with the kids before i spend the next 36 getting back to the UK :(

[DadsWatch72]

Thanks for all the photo closeups. I see what your saying about the quality. It looks like the watch is coated with snowflakes. In the first four pictures above, the bevel is hardly noticeable if at all (the Mark II for example). I think that the blackened area is an optical illusion made by the angle of the watch. Something like my watches angle in this photo below. In the remaining photos (four also) you can see the bevel clearly and it is wide. It seems that some models might have been produced with a more noticeable bevel but some were not. Doesn't Rolex have a library of all their watches in Geneva containing NOS watches of every model? Why don't these guys that work at Rolex and actually do this work get on the forum and provide some input???

[DadsWatch72]

It would appear that the first Submariner had a bevel as you describe. But on other models its absent like on the Bluesy.

http://www.rolex.com/en#/rolex-watch...st-submariner/

http://www.rolex.com/en#/rolex-watch.../introduction/

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by DadsWatch72

Thanks for all the photo closeups. I see what your saying about the quality. It looks like the watch is coated with snowflakes. In the first four pictures above, the bevel is hardly noticeable if at all (the Mark II for example). I think that the blackened area is an optical illusion made by the angle of the watch. Something like my watches angle in this photo below. In the remaining photos (four also) you can see the bevel clearly and it is wide. It seems that some models might have been produced with a more noticeable bevel but some were not. Doesn't Rolex have a library of all their watches in Geneva containing NOS watches of every model? Why don't these guys that work at Rolex and actually do this work get on the forum and provide some input???

lol, dd2, so it is just an angle just like your scans, and what you are actually seeing is the case side ??? thats what you are saying ??

so how do you explain the chamfer at the top of it, if it was the case side it wouldn't return down on the scan, and the fact the darkend bevel area is visible on both sides of the case and on four lugs, it can't be angled both ways at once !!!! as alreay statedm the drsd has a fatter thicker acse so the angle down of the bevel is slightly sharper and therefore less noticeable head on than for example a sub

so just to be clear, the period factory finish wasnt a bevel, because even though it shows one in the factory booklet, its viewable on one of the best NOS examples ever to surface. its viewable on every other NOS model available from the period.. yours doesnt have it so it wasnt so ???

[jedly1]

Originally Posted by DadsWatch72

It would appear that the first Submariner had a bevel as you describe. But on other models its absent like on the Bluesy.

http://www.rolex.com/en#/rolex-watch...st-submariner/

http://www.rolex.com/en#/rolex-watch.../introduction/

one is a link to a 50's watch clearly showing the bevel, the other is a link to modern blue sub ?? neither example is particllarly relevant, and as already said the bevel was a feature of a 70's piece and is not on more modern watches.. probably why so many who dont know much about vintage are quick to assume its incorrect !!!

[CaveDiver]

Originally Posted by jedly1

one is a link to a 50's watch clearly showing the bevel, the other is a link to modern blue sub ?? neither example is particllarly relevant, and as already said the bevel was a feature of a 70's piece and is not on more modern watches.. probably why so many who dont know much about vintage are quick to assume its incorrect !!!

Just 70's?? What about late 60's?

Also, you made some references to 93150, 78360, 9315, 7836 bracelets and the "0" being around in 72 at the same time as the non "0" and the 7206. Can you please provide time frames each of these were produced? I thought 72 was a tad early for the "0". Thanks

[jedly1]

hi cave diver, sorry it does reads a bit odd, the bevel was present in late 50's and early 60's, and at that time was actually probably larger, have soem scans of early NOS 59 6542 that i can show when i get back to oz that is nearly all bezel....!!!

the 7206/6636 was used from factory till 68/9, then the 7836/9315 until 72/3 then solids... all phased in around each other with plenty of overlap... add in the Rolex usa policy of subbingout and using their own, and keeping both the 7206 and 9315/7836 running longer.

plenty of low to mid 3 million serial watches from original owners on solids with early codes.

[CaveDiver]

Originally Posted by jedly1

the 7206/6636 was used from factory till 68/9, then the 7836/9315 until 72/3 then solids... all phased in around each other with plenty of overlap... add in the Rolex usa policy of subbingout and using their own, and keeping both the 7206 and 9315/7836 running longer.

plenty of low to mid 3 million serial watches from original owners on solids with early codes.

Thanks a bunch. Do you know of any 5512 or 5513 that came with the 7836(0)?
Thanks

[jedly1]

seen a few, general feeling is they didnt leave factory that way, but could have been swapped by dealer ( either new or later) juggling stock, or even by customers who didnt like the fliplock when they tried it on.

[CaveDiver]

Thanks,
On the note on the bevel on the case lugs. When I received my father’s 5512 from my mother and looked at it I notice the very bevel you are talking about. I'm sure this case has had some light polish over its life as it was used for years in deep sea and cave diving. I notice the bevel amount is more pronounced on the crown side of the case and I thought what the heck the RSC do to this watch. Now it appears it was made that way. Never really gave it much thought until I read your posts. The bevel is still there and would probably look as sharp if the top was brushed and the bevel edge shined up. Maybe this watch made it all these years without seeing a butcher..