Help with dial on a 1967 5513 Sub?

[harbenry]

I'm considering the purchase of a 5513 dated 1967 and the seller is stating that the dial and bezel insert are original. I'm looking for a watch with patina and I'm just not seeing what I'd expect here given the supposed details. The photos aren't great at judging the patina of the lume, but they seem like they should be more visibly yellow than what I'm seeing for 1967. The lume on the dial, bezel, and hands seem to match. Bracelet is a replacement 93150 / 580. Any chance this dial could be from 67, or more likely it is a service dial from whenever the bracelet and hands were swapped? Thanks in advance.

[harbenry]

Images attached another way.

[antrolexsub]

Hands are fake and that dial looks possibly relumed to me. Can’t say for sure though without macros of the lume/texture, the lume of this era can be a bit sloppy. A 67 should be zinc Sulfide, hit it with a UV and see what it does. Pristine zinc Sulfide can appear white with a slightly green tint to it as per this one so no cause for concern in regards to the patina/colour. You need UV pictures and high resolution macros of the lume to be able to tell with any sort of certainty.

[Dan S]

Zinc sulfide lume plots very often have a somewhat domed shape. I really can't judge well from those photos, but there's a good chance that the dial is relumed, so I would want to see a UV shot.

[harbenry]

Thanks for the feedback. What would I be looking for under the UV, lume consistency? If it had been relumed, I would expect it to glow so I'm looking for it to glow but minimally if it's original?

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by harbenry

Thanks for the feedback. What would I be looking for under the UV, lume consistency? If it had been relumed, I would expect it to glow so I'm looking for it to glow but minimally if it's original?

You would be looking for the response of zinc sulfide lume, which was distinctive to that time period. You should be able to find examples on the forum.

Edit: I found this photo I posted previously showing a side-by-side UV shot of 5513s from 1967 (left) and 1977 (right).

[Trogster]

'67

[brandrea]

1967 (early 1.7M )



Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[harbenry]

Originally Posted by Trogster

'67

Beautiful, the color of lume I'd expect on a 67 and why I'm questioning this one I'm looking at.

[Dan S]

Color can vary. Shape of the lume plots and UV response are more definitive.

But let me ask you this ... do you like the color of the lume plots? If not, why even bother asking about it, just keep looking.

[harbenry]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Color can vary. Shape of the lume plots and UV response are more definitive.

But let me ask you this ... do you like the color of the lume plots? If not, why even bother asking about it, just keep looking.

While the lume color isn't my ideal, the price is. Hence the thoughtful consideration instead of just waiting for the perfect looking specimen.

[harry in montreal]

It’s a weird watch. Thé insert Is a very nice long 5 too. Did you see the bevels in the case ? They look like they have had a lot of work done. The joy of these mid 60s subs is thé look of the lume. This one doesn’t have the appeal. For what it’s worth, I owned a 1967 years ago and the lume plots were degraded. They are delicate and this is why orig one’s command a premium when they are in good shape.

[TuRo]

Fake hands and relumed (it's well done, but there is a bit of feathering outside plots, instead of expected shrinkage)....Look forward to seeing UV photo.

[harbenry]

If it wasn't clear, I haven't seen the watch in person. I requested a UV photo and the seller is now saying that someone else looked at the watch under UV and said it had been relumed. They also disclosed the hands are replacements (didn't say non-genuine). They have not offered a UV photo for me to see myself.

I certainly agree with the point made about it not having the appeal one would look for when looking at a 60's watch, hence my hesitation from the start. Thanks for all the feedback...