1655 Steve McQueen's value

[mineral]

Originally Posted by SubKing

thank you. The original owner had told me that it was not an every day watch when he bought it in the early 70’s. Early 90’s till now it sat in his safe deposit box he said. When I acquired it, oils were dry and needed a service. After it came back from the Ridley spa, it runs as smooth as butter. It was actually the first service the watch had ever had if you can believe that.

You are lucky man! Enjoy it to fullest. Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KarlFr]

Probably one of the last ones. 8.09 mill serial, 1984

[mineral]

Originally Posted by KarlFr

Probably one of the last ones. 8.09 mill serial, 1984

Very nice and so pretty. The explorer 1655 need to view in person to appreciate its beauty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dr. Robert]

It is a lovely watch

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[petehk]

Hi All, my 9xx serial,

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Greg5512

You missed the point. Kermit hulk and Batman aren’t and never were real people. Steve McQueen was. The misrepresentation ration is utilized to artificially inflate the value based on a lie. The value of the other watches is not inflated due to an association with a cartoon character or puppet.

James Bond was/is an imaginary, cartoon-ish character that's also a puppet (of his government) yet "Bond Submariner" prices are goofily inflated due to an association with that imaginary being.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by mineral

Totally agreed with you mate!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by swish77

Here's my "frog-foot" MKII.

Originally Posted by mineral

My mark 2 straight second hand from early 70s.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by swish77

Many thanks! Such a fabulous reference!

Originally Posted by SubKing

My frogs foot from original owner

Originally Posted by KarlFr

Probably one of the last ones. 8.09 mill serial, 1984

Beautiful examples guys. Thanks for sharing

[roh123]

Originally Posted by CRM114

James Bond was/is an imaginary, cartoon-ish character that's also a puppet (of his government) yet "Bond Submariner" prices are goofily inflated due to an association with that imaginary being.

Not really. Big crowns can carry themselves value wise.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by CRM114

James Bond was/is an imaginary, cartoon-ish character that's also a puppet (of his government) yet "Bond Submariner" prices are goofily inflated due to an association with that imaginary being.

Yes, but Sean Connery AS Bond actually wore the big crown Sub. McQueen never wore the Explorer. The whole dispute is that there’s no reason to refer to that Explorer as the Steve McQueen since he was never seen wearing one. It just makes no sense. (Incidentally, the Kermit and Batman are called that because of the color scheme of the two watches being similar to the color schemes of the two characters, not because they wore them).

[Sublovin]

Do we really have to do this? Does anyone REALLY care?!
These watches are fantastic and this thread is filled with wonderful photos of a watch that I would be happy to own regardless of nickname...call it the Laverne and Shirley...who cares!
Earlier in the thread I asked a gentleman who decided to but in to a comment I made to substantiate his claims that people are being mislead by this nickname and values were artificially inflated. At that point, he suddenly lost interest in responding even though his unsubstantiated claims are no less dangerous than a potentially misleading nickname, which he felt was a terrible crime (ironic, isn’t it)?
I have never owned a 1655, but they are very nice, and this could be a wonderful thread of photos if everyone could agree that nobody cares if Steve McQueen ever wore the damn reference!
Great pics here...keep them coming.

[SubKing]

Did someone say Mr. Bond? Checking in.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Do we really have to do this? Does anyone REALLY care?!

Yes! Yes, we do!! It's imperative and crucial to the health and honor of this hobby! You know what'll come next if we stop?! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

[SubKing]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Do we really have to do this? Does anyone REALLY care?!
These watches are fantastic and this thread is filled with wonderful photos of a watch that I would be happy to own regardless of nickname...call it the Laverne and Shirley...who cares!
Earlier in the thread I asked a gentleman who decided to but in to a comment I made to substantiate his claims that people are being mislead by this nickname and values were artificially inflated. At that point, he suddenly lost interest in responding even though his unsubstantiated claims are no less dangerous than a potentially misleading nickname, which he felt was a terrible crime (ironic, isn’t it)?
I have never owned a 1655, but they are very nice, and this could be a wonderful thread of photos if everyone could agree that nobody cares if Steve McQueen ever wore the damn reference!
Great pics here...keep them coming.

As passionate as you are about "not caring" if McQueen wore a 1655 or not, is as passionate as some of us are that actually "do care" if he wore it.

everyone has a right to feel how they wanna feel. I personally, along with many other collectors and dealers feel the same about a 1655 not being associated with McQueen at all. It is something that has been debunked a long time ago already. It's nothing new.

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by SubKing

I personally, along with many other collectors and dealers feel the same about a 1655 not being associated with McQueen at all. It is something that has been debunked a long time ago already. It's nothing new.

I realize that, so why are we still talking about it?

[SubKing]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

I realize that, so why are we still talking about it?

pretty sure because you just brought it up... again.

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by SubKing

Did someone say Mr. Bond? Checking in.

Wow...that needs it’s own thread!

[SubKing]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Wow...that needs it’s own thread!

[Daveclock]

Originally Posted by swish77

Are you sure you're in the right thread? The OP was asking about 1655 prices.

I think it was a remark about the 5513 that we KNOW he owned and was pictured with, not sure if he wore the “Il Freccione” - but not pictured doing so, as far as I know?

I think its now just a "thing" like the Batman, Pepsi, Hulk (did that big green dude even wear one? - he must had appreciated the glide lock when he got angry!?!)

If I can throw a slight hand grenade into the discussion when I say I think Rolex really brought out a great new incarnation of it with the off black dial 216570 - with the Arrow Hand, the "floating hands" etc.,

https://www.gmtpost.com/post/steve-m...on-by-phillips

[tekno]

Are all 1655’s the same? Is there a special feature people are referring to when they incorrectly reference Mcqeen? Like a “Paul Newman Daytona” vs normal Daytona.

Just curious... I really like the earlier Exp II, and would love to own one eventually.

Maybe all matte dial Pepsi 1675’s should be the “Tom Selleck GMT”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[swish77]

Originally Posted by tekno

Are all 1655’s the same? Is there a special feature people are referring to when they incorrectly reference Mcqeen? Like a “Paul Newman Daytona” vs normal Daytona.

Just curious... I really like the earlier Exp II, and would love to own one eventually.

No, they're not all the same, but this is just a myth/mistake that gets perpetuated for some reason. McQueen most famously wore a 5512 Sub.

The 1655 has its own special differences/features ... the "straight hand" and "frog foot" versions, for example. Here's my MKII "frog foot" below.

[CF999]

They are fantastic and deserve their respectful place in that early 1970s period!

[Doppiano]

Hi,
I know the post was about the value.
But I'd like to ask you what do you think of mine? It has less patina then most of the 1655 I saw online. Whiter indexes and a more vivid 24hors hand... the bezel is pretty polished but I was told that less patina could mean less time on a wrist
Thank you

[mineral]

Originally Posted by swish77

No, they're not all the same, but this is just a myth/mistake that gets perpetuated for some reason. McQueen most famously wore a 5512 Sub.



The 1655 has its own special differences/features ... the "straight hand" and "frog foot" versions, for example. Here's my MKII "frog foot" below.

Superb example of 1655 and perfect! Love it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paulie 50]

You will never, ever, ever see a photo of Steve McQueen wearing an Explorer; but hey people can, and usually do believe just what they want to believe. ��