ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

stevemulholland3 · 14 July 2009, 07:09 PM

hey guys..I just got in one of the famous 7928/5513's from 1966 with the quarter stamp of VI...
there have been many many theories thrown around as to why the casebacks where stamped with the 6th quarter..when there are only four quarters..lol
I tend to believe that there where so many changes to the line that year
that they actually divided the runs into 6 "quarters"...
what would solidify my theory is if someone could show me a picture of their
5513 or 7928 from 1966 with a "V" stamp..
anyone?
how about some more theories as well..would love to hear them!
here are a couple of shots of the casebacks..have many many more from around the world!

Balboa · 14 July 2009, 11:25 PM

Maybe just a big mistake. These are obviously punched in a different step than the basic case back manufacture.

Maybe a careless (or dyslexic) worker stamped VI instead of IV. Rather than trash hundreds of case backs, they just went with them.

I there are any V backs it would certainly help with the answer either way.

Mark

bagel · 14 July 2009, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

hey guys..I just got in one of the famous 7928/5513's from 1966 with the quarter stamp of VI...
there have been many many theories thrown around as to why the casebacks where stamped with the 6th quarter..when there are only four quarters..lol
I tend to believe that there where so many changes to the line that year
that they actually divided the runs into 6 "quarters"...
what would solidify my theory is if someone could show me a picture of their
5513 or 7928 from 1966 with a "V" stamp..
anyone?
how about some more theories as well..would love to hear them!
here are a couple of shots of the casebacks..have many many more from around the world!

I have seen a few samples like this before and they looks ok to me, but I haven't seen samples with "V" before.

onkyo · 15 July 2009, 12:01 AM

If no one has ever seen a 'V' before that would convince me of an error due to a dyslexic worker (aka a mistake)......

ps great post Steve..... I learned something new today!

stevemulholland3 · 15 July 2009, 10:34 AM

the only problem with the dyslexic worker theory is that the tudor and the rolex cases where being assembled in two seperate lines..so I would assume that means that they where also stamped in two different area's..now I know thats a lot of assumptions but it definitely seems to be a reasonable hypthesis..
so I guess the hunt begins for a V stamp!!

onkyo · 15 July 2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

the only problem with the dyslexic worker theory is that the tudor and the rolex cases where being assembled in two seperate lines..so I would assume that means that they where also stamped in two different area's..now I know thats a lot of assumptions but it definitely seems to be a reasonable hypthesis..
so I guess the hunt begins for a V stamp!!

Great post Steve.....

I give you a double

SLS · 15 July 2009, 11:53 AM

Wow, I have never seen that before, cool stuff Steve!
Scott

T5AUS · 15 July 2009, 06:59 PM

Hey Steve, gota watch these dislexic workers

....Are we sure these Roman numerals were not for the individual months, ie 1 = Jan, 11 = Feb, 111 = Mar, 1111 (or 1V) = Apr, V = may, & V1 = Jun .....etc.
My 61 tudor Sub has 11 61 (Feb 1961 perhaps?) (see photo)
My two bobs worth anyway, interesting thread you have started here

stevemulholland3 · 15 July 2009, 08:38 PM

hey phil,
they are definitely for quarters...
at least in every year except 1966!!...lol
maybe the devil thought it would be a big laugh..he-he-he

greekbum · 26 November 2009, 01:52 PM

Heres 2 pics of 1 I have

Wolfgang427 · 26 November 2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

hey phil,
they are definitely for quarters...
at least in every year except 1966!!...lol
maybe the devil thought it would be a big laugh..he-he-he

I noticed that this is only on the 66 year model's?

Maybe your satan worshiper theory is not to far fetched Steve.

tomvox1 · 27 November 2009, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

the only problem with the dyslexic worker theory is that the tudor and the rolex cases where being assembled in two seperate lines..so I would assume that means that they where also stamped in two different area's..now I know thats a lot of assumptions but it definitely seems to be a reasonable hypthesis..
so I guess the hunt begins for a V stamp!!

...are you certain that the Rolex & Tudor lines were being assembled in two different lines? I understand that they would be stamped differently by marque of course but both are Rolex cases. In any event, AFAIK the date/quarter stamps are the last thing to go on the back and at some time after the initial brand nomenclature (hence different fonts, etc). So Rolex & Tudor backs could have been stamped at the same time even though produced at different periods or places. I could be mistaken but this is how I understand the procedure.

And finally: As you say, if "VI" is not a typo, where are the "V" backs to signify the penultimate "Extra Quarter" of that strange year of 1966?

My mind remains open but until I see a "V.66" I am of the opinion that this was just a mistake, albeit one made in mass production. Doesn't make it any less interesting, though...

All the best,
Tom

stevemulholland3 · 28 November 2009, 09:38 PM

hey Tom,
this one remains one of the great Rolex mysteries to date..
some of the Rolex historians I have talked to about this anomaly believe that if there are these "V" casebacks they may be for a specific run of cases or some other specialized category..so they will be quite rare and hard to find.But the search cotinue's!
good to see you over here tom!
I still find it very hard to believe that rolex would make a mistake like this and just keep the line going.
and yes,I am pretty sure that the two brands where being assembled in two different lines..possibly inside the same factory,but two different lines.

John in MA · 3 December 2009, 04:20 AM

Steve,

Assembled on two lines makes sense. Manufactured on two lines does not depending on the process. Stamping and engraving? That doesn't.

Most factories will use the same equipment for different "brands" so to speak to cut down on costs and will be run through in shifts.

Let's imagine it's 1966 at the Rolex factory. Workers have shuffled in and they are preparing to run the engraving and stamping machines for the upcoming subs. First up are the 5513's. Dies are set, machines are calibrated and the stamping begins. Just the guy at the end has mixed up the placement of the V and the I stamps (more then likely they are separate) by mistake and all the casebacks he is stamping are incorrect.

The entire batch is run, moves on the QC where they wait to be inspected. By the time they are inspected and the error is found, all the other Sub casebacks have already been stamped as well.

If the date is the LAST step in the stamping process and the VI 66 stamping is seen on all subs from IV 66 then it makes no economical sense to scrap all the casebacks and reset the manufacturing line to redo an entire batch of casebacks for IV 66.

We've seen that Rolex reuses old parts as they move on to new models and don't scrap. Couple of examples: early 76100 Tudor Subs have a 9411 caseback and early 7016's from 68 have a 7528 caseback stamping. Why wouldn't they scrap these and make correct ones with the right stamps? Heck, other companies did the same. Even Omega would reuse incorrect casebacks. They would stamp over the error with lines and restamp the correct information after that. I've seen many Seamaster 300 date casebacks (have a different reference then the no date) use a no date caseback but the no date model number has been stamped out and the correct one put below it.

Once the cases are done though I agree that they would be moved to separate assembly lines. All the factories I work with do it the same way as it makes the most economical sense.

15 July 2009, 11:53 AM	#7
SLS "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Scott Location: GMT -7 Watch: GMT's & Sub's Posts: 10,399	Wow, I have never seen that before, cool stuff Steve! Scott __________________ "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of lower price is forgotten." -Benjamin Franklin Member No. 922

14 July 2009, 11:25 PM	#2
Balboa Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: SoCal OC U.S.A. Posts: 342	Maybe just a big mistake. These are obviously punched in a different step than the basic case back manufacture. Maybe a careless (or dyslexic) worker stamped VI instead of IV. Rather than trash hundreds of case backs, they just went with them. I there are any V backs it would certainly help with the answer either way. Mark

15 July 2009, 12:01 AM	#4
onkyo Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: Pav Location: Manhattan Posts: 11,495	If no one has ever seen a 'V' before that would convince me of an error due to a dyslexic worker (aka a mistake)...... ps great post Steve..... I learned something new today!

15 July 2009, 10:34 AM	#5
stevemulholland3 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: steven Location: tampa bay Watch: 1680 18k sub Posts: 6,673	the only problem with the dyslexic worker theory is that the tudor and the rolex cases where being assembled in two seperate lines..so I would assume that means that they where also stamped in two different area's..now I know thats a lot of assumptions but it definitely seems to be a reasonable hypthesis.. so I guess the hunt begins for a V stamp!!

15 July 2009, 08:38 PM	#9
stevemulholland3 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: steven Location: tampa bay Watch: 1680 18k sub Posts: 6,673	hey phil, they are definitely for quarters... at least in every year except 1966!!...lol maybe the devil thought it would be a big laugh..he-he-he

28 November 2009, 09:38 PM	#13
stevemulholland3 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: steven Location: tampa bay Watch: 1680 18k sub Posts: 6,673	hey Tom, this one remains one of the great Rolex mysteries to date.. some of the Rolex historians I have talked to about this anomaly believe that if there are these "V" casebacks they may be for a specific run of cases or some other specialized category..so they will be quite rare and hard to find.But the search cotinue's! good to see you over here tom! I still find it very hard to believe that rolex would make a mistake like this and just keep the line going. and yes,I am pretty sure that the two brands where being assembled in two different lines..possibly inside the same factory,but two different lines.

3 December 2009, 04:20 AM	#14
John in MA "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Boston Posts: 862	Steve, Assembled on two lines makes sense. Manufactured on two lines does not depending on the process. Stamping and engraving? That doesn't. Most factories will use the same equipment for different "brands" so to speak to cut down on costs and will be run through in shifts. Let's imagine it's 1966 at the Rolex factory. Workers have shuffled in and they are preparing to run the engraving and stamping machines for the upcoming subs. First up are the 5513's. Dies are set, machines are calibrated and the stamping begins. Just the guy at the end has mixed up the placement of the V and the I stamps (more then likely they are separate) by mistake and all the casebacks he is stamping are incorrect. The entire batch is run, moves on the QC where they wait to be inspected. By the time they are inspected and the error is found, all the other Sub casebacks have already been stamped as well. If the date is the LAST step in the stamping process and the VI 66 stamping is seen on all subs from IV 66 then it makes no economical sense to scrap all the casebacks and reset the manufacturing line to redo an entire batch of casebacks for IV 66. We've seen that Rolex reuses old parts as they move on to new models and don't scrap. Couple of examples: early 76100 Tudor Subs have a 9411 caseback and early 7016's from 68 have a 7528 caseback stamping. Why wouldn't they scrap these and make correct ones with the right stamps? Heck, other companies did the same. Even Omega would reuse incorrect casebacks. They would stamp over the error with lines and restamp the correct information after that. I've seen many Seamaster 300 date casebacks (have a different reference then the no date) use a no date caseback but the no date model number has been stamped out and the correct one put below it. Once the cases are done though I agree that they would be moved to separate assembly lines. All the factories I work with do it the same way as it makes the most economical sense.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)