Real patina on 5513 bezel insert?

[Initial_J]

What do people think? Bezel’s pretty beat up but I think it looks pretty cool. No clue if this is natural or not…

[Dan S]

It's too far gone for me, and also not correct for the watch IMO.

[Initial_J]

What’s not correct about it (other than being totally beat up)?

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by Initial_J

What’s not correct about it (other than being totally beat up)?

era of the watch vs. the bezel insert font / style isn't correct.

thats a meters first matte dial 5513 with a later insert it would appear.

[baumare]

I believe should mount a "Long 5" insert, and those are not cheap to buy.
The present insert would bugging me every time I look at the watch...

[Initial_J]

Originally Posted by baumare

I believe should mount a "Long 5" insert, and those are not cheap to buy.
The present insert would bugging me every time I look at the watch...

Wasn’t the Long 5 from the gilt era?

[karleone]

The insert is cracked it would bother me everytime i look at the watch!

[rootbeer7]

Separating the era from the question of original. I’d suggest looking at the damage it would appear original. I had a 1665 who’s bezel has started to degrade like that.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

Separating the era from the question of original. I’d suggest looking at the damage it would appear original. I had a 1665 who’s bezel has started to degrade like that.

What do you mean by original? The insert is not original to the meters-first dial, as mentioned above. If you are saying that the damage may have happened naturally, then I agree.

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by Initial_J

Wasn’t the Long 5 from the gilt era?

Long 5's are from 60 -69 plus / minus ofc.

The color, fading, aging is nice but the missing bits would annoy me too.

[rootbeer7]

Originally Posted by Dan S

What do you mean by original? The insert is not original to the meters-first dial, as mentioned above. If you are saying that the damage may have happened naturally, then I agree.

Exactly this.