5513 1960s Hour hand moves slightly setting time

[inadeje]

I have a 5513 maxi from the 60s. It’s a beautiful watch albeit has a replacement bezel and has certainly been polished. I wanted an exact birth year so I bought it.

Moving on to my question. When setting the watch if I move the minute hand backwards the hour hand moves ever so slightly too. Afterwards, it isn’t unaligned while functioning and the watch keeps shockingly perfect time. It has always done this since I bought it. It’s a minor annoyance but I was wondering if all 5513s do this or if mine has a fault? I’ve had it for many years now, it never misses a beat, I’m just curious that’s all.

Thanks if anyone has any comments.

[alwayshere]

Okay, not trying to be facetious here but when you wind the movement "backwards", if the minute hand goes back, the hand hour will follow suit.... assuming you are not describing that?

Are you sure the hands are not already misaligned to begin with?

[Kingface66]

A maxi from the 60s?

[Old Expat Beast]

The hour hand on mine (L serial) wiggles a bit when setting the time backwards, too. I'm told it's normal.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

The hour hand on mine (L serial) wiggles a bit when setting the time backwards, too. I'm told it's normal.

Thanks, I appreciate your reply. Wiggles was the word I should have used to describe the issue.

I’m glad to hear it’s normal. The watch functions perfectly in all other respects and since it was my first true vintage I hadn’t experienced it before.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

A maxi from the 60s?

I don’t know enough about vintage. I thought the kind of dial it has was called maxi, I could be wrong. Conveniently, it looks just like the dial in your profile picture. Namely, it doesn’t have the white gold surrounds from later 5513s, instead the lume is applied directly onto the dial.

What is the dial in your profile photo called?

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by inadeje

I don’t know enough about vintage. I thought the kind of dial it has was called maxi, I could be wrong. Conveniently, it looks just like the dial in your profile picture. Namely, it doesn’t have the white gold surrounds from later 5513s, instead the lume is applied directly onto the dial.

What is the dial in your profile photo called?

The dial in my pic is from my 1966 5513. It has a glossy gilt dial. A year later, in 1967 Rolex began using matte dials. There are a number of variations. In the second half of the 70s, Maxi dials were introduced.
Can you post a picture of your 5513? What year is it?

[Filipão]

OP, glad you're reassured now by Old Expat.

You've been a member for 9 years, so probably you know this excellent guide, but here it goes in any case:

http://www.5513mattedial.com/MaxiDials.html

Merry Christmas!

Oh, btw, this is a Maxi MK1 matte:

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

The dial in my pic is from my 1966 5513. It has a glossy gilt dial. A year later, in 1967 Rolex began using matte dials. There are a number of variations. In the second half of the 70s, Maxi dials were introduced.
Can you post a picture of your 5513? What year is it?

Of course the finer details of your dial aren’t visible in the very low resolution profile photos we are allowed. I meant only that your lume plots look similar to mine, in so much as they don’t have the white gold surrounds.

As you can see in the photos my dial is definitely matte black. The seller told me that the bezel is the wrong year. At the time I bought I checked the serial # online at it was 68/69. Also the interior of the caseback is stamped V 68.

I didn’t pay much for it compared to some I saw up in the 20 to 40k range back in 2019.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by Filipão

OP, glad you're reassured now by Old Expat.

You've been a member for 9 years, so probably you know this excellent guide, but here it goes in any case:

http://www.5513mattedial.com/MaxiDials.html

Merry Christmas!

Oh, btw, this is a Maxi MK1 matte:

Thanks for the link. That’s a beautiful watch

I guess I should conclude that since my dial is similar to yours that it doesn’t match the 68/69 serial number and case back?

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by inadeje

As you can see in the photos my dial is definitely matte black. The seller told me that the bezel is the wrong year. At the time I bought I checked the serial # online at it was 68/69. Also the interior of the caseback is stamped V 68.

I didn’t pay much for it compared to some I saw up in the 20 to 40k range back in 2019.

As noted, you dial and insert are not original to the watch, assuming the you have dated it correctly using the serial number. As for prices, they depend a great deal on the details and a 5513 may sell as low as $10k, and perhaps as high as $40k, although the latter would be quite a special example of a gilt-gloss reference.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by Dan S

As noted, you dial and insert are not original to the watch, assuming the you have dated it correctly using the serial number. As for prices, they depend a great deal on the details and a 5513 may sell as low as $10k, and perhaps as high as $40k, although the latter would be quite a special example.

Yes, I assumed so. After looking at the excellent link provide it would appear to be a maxi III? I paid 8.4k for it in early 2019. The seller wanted 9.2k but after making my offer then ghosting him for about a week he acquiesced.

I’m happy with the watch. I guess I could opt for a true stellar all OEM 5513 at some point. This one just dipped my toes in the super complex vintage scene and clearly I wasn’t up to speed on all the details.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by inadeje

I’m happy with the watch.

Most important sentence in the thread, and I think you should absolutely enjoy it.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

The dial in my pic is from my 1966 5513. It has a glossy gilt dial. A year later, in 1967 Rolex began using matte dials. There are a number of variations. In the second half of the 70s, Maxi dials were introduced.
Can you post a picture of your 5513? What year is it?

Originally Posted by Dan S

As noted, you dial and insert are not original to the watch, assuming the you have dated it correctly using the serial number. As for prices, they depend a great deal on the details and a 5513 may sell as low as $10k, and perhaps as high as $40k, although the latter would be quite a special example of a gilt-gloss reference.

I do remain confused though. The answers lead me to conclude that the dial is incorrect for the year and 2.36m serial. I know the bezel doesn’t jive and knew it when I bought it. Unless I’m once again missing key dial intricacies this 1968 watch has an identical dial to mine. Would it mean that this watch for sale has also had a replacement dial at some point or did Rolex manufacture the 68s with these dials?

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=860051

Sorry for so many questions.

[Crown & Shield]

Edit: my bad, the rivet bracelet is period-correct.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by inadeje

I do remain confused though. The answers lead me to conclude that the dial is incorrect for the year and 2.36m serial. I know the bezel doesn’t jive and knew it when I bought it. Unless I’m once again missing key dial intricacies this 1968 watch has an identical dial to mine. Would it mean that this watch for sale has also had a replacement dial at some point or did Rolex manufacture the 68s with these dials?

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=860051

Sorry for so many questions.

OK, I finally took a look at your dial. All along I was just trusting your assessment that it was a maxi dial, but it's not. It is a non-serif dial, which can be fine for 2.36M serial, circa 1969. The only maxi with depth rating about SUBMARINER are a pre-COMEX and maxi MK1, and yours is definitely not one of those.

The watch in that listing has a serif dial, which is not the same as yours. Note the different shape and length of the middle line in the "E" of ROLEX. It takes some practice to identify the dials.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by Dan S

OK, I finally took a look at your dial. All along I was just trusting your assessment that it was a maxi dial, but it's not. It is a non-serif dial, which can be fine for 2.36M serial, circa 1969.

The watch in that listing has a serif dial, which is not the same as yours. It takes some practice to identify the dials.

Thanks Dan, I appreciate your continued responses and education on what is evidently a minefield of subtle differences.

One kind poster provided this article for reference.

http://www.5513mattedial.com/MaxiDials.html

It seems to refer to the dials like mine as Maxi Dials (it cites 7 all referenced as “Maxi”, MK 1 thru 6 and then a Comex variant). Is it a mistake on the website provided? Is there a name for my type of dial if it isn’t called a Maxi as the article states?

I’m finding this very interesting. If I were to pick up a period correct fat font bezel, based upon your comments, my watch would be entirely period correct?

I know its over polished, but if everything else is correct as you say, I would probably bite the bullet and get the bezel. Which Mk bezel would I need? I also read that sometimes the case back doesn’t match the serial, even from day 1. Mine is stamped V 68, which I assume is May 68. The serial on numerous charts I’ve viewed are ambiguous. Some suggest my serial as late 67 thru late 68. Others state early 68 thru 69. But, that got me thinking about contemporary times when ADs frequently sell watches as they arrive, while even today it’s frequent to have references that are even discontinued being sold at official ADs long after, sometimes years... So, I’m assuming that a 68 stamped watch could technically have been sold in 68, 69, 70 or whenever a buyer appeared. That wouldn’t affect the serial though…so I have to think, where do these production charts get their production years data from? Did Rolex provide that data back in the day?

My final question is, I’ve read that it isn’t uncommon for dials of my era to maintain their white plots and the same with the hands. Would I be correct in assuming that this was a period when Rolex used a different lume? What I find bizarre is that I see watches allegedly both before and after my production date with patina creamy plots and hands. What gives? Is there a rational explanation for this if it isn’t the lume blend used? Possibly my watch didn’t spend a lot of its life in direct sunlight? Another reason?

Thanks again for your time and input.

[Dan S]

As I mentioned, your dial is called a non-serif. It is also described on that same website. http://www.5513mattedial.com/Serifs.html

I tried to explain this in my previous post. Look at the shape of the coronet, the relative position of the depth rating and the SUBMARINER (over vs under), the shape of the "S" in SUBMARINER. The position of the equal sign relative to the "A" under it, etc. Study hard, it takes a while to develop an eye for detail.

Good article here about bezel inserts: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...r-t266367.html

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by Dan S

As I mentioned, your dial is called a non-serif. It is also described on that same website. http://www.5513mattedial.com/Serifs.html

I tried to explain this in my previous post. Look at the shape of the coronet, the relative position of the depth rating and the SUBMARINER (over vs under), the shape of the "S" in SUBMARINER. The position of the equal sign relative to the "A" under it, etc. Study hard, it takes a while to develop an eye for detail.

Good article here about bezel inserts: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...r-t266367.html

Dan, I’ve reached half way through reading the bezel link you’ve provide. Thanks, that is truly epic. Much appreciated.