5513 Serif versus Non-Serif?

[mitchie41]

Hey Guys:

I have a vintage Matte Dial 5513 (Serial Number is 3.5M)

I was just doing some research on the 5513 Matte Dial Website: http://www.5513mattedial.com/Serifs.html

According to this resource, my watch should be a "serif dial" by serial number.

But when I look at the dial under a loupe, I notice that the middle stroke in the "E" in "ROLEX" has serif at the end which is what you see in an earlier "non-serif" dial.

Under UV light, the markers glow green evenly, but once the light source is removed, I can see a very faint glow from the markers that last a few minutes in pitch darkness.

Is the dial original?
Is the response to UV Light something that is expected? I have other vintage watches and I find that the lume glows evenly under UV, but the glow fades immediately once the UV light source is removed.

[SubKing]

Hopefully you can post sharper higher res pics of the dial plots.

From what I can see, the dial looks relumed to me. ESP the 9 o’clock marker, can see uneven lumpy Lume with an air bubble

[007Sub]

Looks like a correct non serif dial. These numbers in serial references are not etched in stone. Its likely a very early second batch of non serifs. Lume looks fine. Agreed that higher res macros would be most helpful in confirming.

[sgk]

Nice 5513. Mine is from the same period and also has a non-serif dial.
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=610683

Enjoy the heck out of it!

[SubKing]

Originally Posted by 007Sub

Looks like a correct non serif dial. These numbers in serial references are not etched in stone. Its likely a very early second batch of non serifs. Lume looks fine. Agreed that higher res macros would be most helpful in confirming.

That lume does not look like factory applied lume.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by SubKing

That lume does not look like factory applied lume.

Agreed. Definitely looks relumed, and this serial range shouldn't glow green under a UV.

For comparison, here is my 3.7 million 5512, also with a non-serif dial. The tritium on the dial and hands is original, and under a UV looks uniformly white with no glow.

[007Sub]

Originally Posted by swish77

Agreed. Definitely looks relumed, and this serial range shouldn't glow green under a UV.

For comparison, here is my 3.7 million 5512, also with a non-serif dial. The tritium on the dial and hands is original, and under a UV looks uniformly white with no glow.

Gorgeous example!

My impression of what the OP is saying is that during UV exposure it appears to glow but then is faint if at all visible after removal of light source... which sounds ok. I agree with you that if it glowed bright after removal of light that would be an issue. But lets not jump to conclusions on the OP's watch without macros.

[SubKing]

Originally Posted by 007Sub

Gorgeous example!

My impression of what the OP is saying is that during UV exposure it appears to glow but then is faint if at all visible after removal of light source... which sounds ok. I agree with you that if it glowed bright after removal of light that would be an issue. But lets not jump to conclusions on the OP's watch without macros.

[007Sub]

Originally Posted by SubKing

My sentiments exactly! Nothing worse than an "expert" scaring people into thinking their watch is fake with only a few photos to inform their opinion.

[SubKing]

Originally Posted by 007Sub

My sentiments exactly! Nothing worse than an "expert" scaring people into thinking their watch is fake with only a few photos to inform their opinion.

Bhahaha.. which is why you stand alone with all your opinions you state as fact..

Based on your recent posts, I wouldn't even trust your judgment with a new quartz purchase at Sears.

[007Sub]

Originally Posted by SubKing

Bhahaha.. which is why you stand alone with all your opinions you state as fact..

Based on your recent posts, I wouldn't even trust your judgment with a new quartz purchase at Sears.

[05carbondrz]

Boy...The Egos Are strong in this Thread.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by 007Sub

Gorgeous example!

My impression of what the OP is saying is that during UV exposure it appears to glow but then is faint if at all visible after removal of light source... which sounds ok. I agree with you that if it glowed bright after removal of light that would be an issue. But lets not jump to conclusions on the OP's watch without macros.

I don't need to see macros of the OP's watch to see that it looks relumed. Look at the last photo under the UV, with the greenish tint. That says it all. The shape and texture of the lume plots also looks different than I would expect.

Also, dead tritium on these batches of matte '70s dials has zero glow after UV light is removed, not a faint glow for a little while.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by 007Sub

Gorgeous example!

My impression of what the OP is saying is that during UV exposure it appears to glow but then is faint if at all visible after removal of light source... which sounds ok. I agree with you that if it glowed bright after removal of light that would be an issue. But lets not jump to conclusions on the OP's watch without macros.

I don't need to see macros of the OP's watch to see that it looks relumed. Look at the last photo under the UV, with the greenish tint/glow. That says it all. The shape and texture of the lume plots also looks different than I would expect.

Also, dead tritium on these batches of matte '70s dials has zero glow after UV light is removed, not a faint glow for a little while.

[007Sub]

Originally Posted by swish77

I don't need to see macros of the OP's watch to see that it looks relumed. Look at the last photo under the UV, with the greenish glow. That says it all. The shape and texture of the lume plots also looks different than I would expect.



Also, dead tritium on these batches of matte '70s dials has zero glow after UV light is removed, not a faint glow for a little while.

That’s simply not true. Tritium application varies widely in the 70s in terms of thickness. These watches were hand made. Also here are photos of 2 one owner watches. One from 1970 and another from 77. Both watches were never serviced until in my possession. Note the later 70s lume reads quite bright/different under UV exposure where the earlier one looks more white.

Also note the small black dots in tritium on 11 and 1 o’clock markers. Those age spots are characteristic of aged tritium not something that was applied more recently.

Have a look at these.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[swish77]

Originally Posted by 007Sub

That’s simply not true. Tritium application varies widely in the 70s in terms of thickness. These watches were hand made. Also here are photos of 2 one owner watches. One from 1970 and another from 77. Both watches were never serviced until in my possession. Note the later 70s lume reads quite bright/different under UV exposure where the earlier one looks more white.

Also note the small black dots in tritium on 11 and 1 o’clock markers. Those age spots are characteristic of aged tritium not something that was applied more recently.

Have a look at these.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Interesting, but that doesn't address my point. Your two photos look nothing like the Sub in the OP's photos, especially the one under the UV. Look at the greenish color on the lume plots and compare that to the color in your photos. Very different. And look at the uneven roundness on the lume plots in the OP's watch, not to mention the dimples in the 9 and 10 o'clock markers. That ain't factory.

[007Sub]

Originally Posted by swish77

Interesting, but that doesn't address my point. Your two photos look nothing like the Sub in the OP's photos, especially the one under the UV. Look at the greenish color to the lume plots and compare that to the color in your photos. Very different.

I see what you mean. That is likely due to different amount of ambient light though.

At the end of the day nothing beats seeing something in person and under a loop. I don’t think based on the info we have there’s enough to ruin the OPs day and claim his watch is relumed.




Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[swish77]

Originally Posted by 007Sub

I see what you mean. That is likely due to different amount of ambient light though.

At the end of the day nothing beats seeing something in person and under a loop. I don’t think based on the info we have there’s enough to ruin the OPs day and claim his watch is relumed.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I'm not claiming anything. The OP asked for opinions, and I gave mine. But yes, it's just my opinion. There is enough in the photos and in his description that lead me to it with little doubt. Still, I do agree that seeing a watch in person is always the best.

[007Sub]

Originally Posted by swish77

I'm not claiming anything. The OP asked for opinions, and I gave mine. But yes, it's just my opinion. There is enough in the photos and in his description that lead me to it with little doubt. Still, I do agree that seeing a watch in person is always the best.

Agreed. And I think if a watch brings up doubts online it’s certainly worth having it examined in person.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[Pavao35]

Pls can you help me if you have time to answer i dont know who to ask so pls again i have vintage rolex sub and i dont know which year or model is and i cant remove bracelett to tell you exact number so i would send you a few pictures do pls tell me what do you think from which year cca could be and which model possibily could be my piece ,tnx for everything and pls answer anything and last question is do you know which model rolex manufactured in that age -60,70’s (Subs)that could be mine!tnx againE8CC312D-83BD-424D-B949-B3849395F564.jpeg

86D1A310-7FFA-4865-82AA-2755EB539429.jpeg

886754C2-7038-44A4-B023-BD21830EF561.jpeg

[Pavao35]

Pls can you help me if you have time to answer i dont know who to ask so pls again i have vintage rolex sub and i dont know which year or model is and i cant remove bracelett to tell you exact number so i would send you a few pictures do pls tell me what do you think from which year cca could be and which model possibily could be my piece ,tnx for everything and pls answer anything and last question is do you know which model rolex manufactured in that age -60,70’s (Subs)that could be mine!tnx again

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Pavao35

Pls can you help me if you have time to answer i dont know who to ask so pls again i have vintage rolex sub and i dont know which year or model is and i cant remove bracelett to tell you exact number so i would send you a few pictures do pls tell me what do you think from which year cca could be and which model possibily could be my piece ,tnx for everything and pls answer anything and last question is do you know which model rolex manufactured in that age -60,70’s (Subs)that could be mine!tnx again

I hate to say anything based on such poor photos, but it is apparently a late 1960s or early 1970s ref 5513 with a replacement bezel insert. For more information, please have the bracelet removed and take good photos of the numbers between the lugs. Unless, it is an emergency, just wait until the pandemic ands and you can take it to a watchmaker.

[1665fan]

Originally Posted by Pavao35

Pls can you help me if you have time to answer i dont know who to ask so pls again i have vintage rolex sub and i dont know which year or model is and i cant remove bracelett to tell you exact number so i would send you a few pictures do pls tell me what do you think from which year cca could be and which model possibily could be my piece ,tnx for everything and pls answer anything and last question is do you know which model rolex manufactured in that age -60,70’s (Subs)that could be mine!tnx again

No offense but a 10 year old can remove the bracelet....take a paper clip or anything that size and put it in the lug hole and remove....that will help