Rolex case and bracelet compatibility need help!!!

[Laurmsi]

Hi everyone , i hope you guys can help me out with this matter.
Is it true that in the world of collectors, especially vintage rolex watches, if the watch after serial number is let's say year '59 and the bracelet is + - 1 year (' 58 or '60) the watch is considered to be complete, all original parts from head to toe?
I will definitely appreciate it if someone of you can elucidate this rumor for me.
Best regards.

[swaini3]

not sure of the question but for a watch to be all "period correct", other parts have to match too. the dial, insert etc. Not only the bracelet.

[Laurmsi]

Originally Posted by swaini3

not sure of the question but for a watch to be all "period correct", other parts have to match too. the dial, insert etc. Not only the bracelet.

You are absolutely right, but in the case that the watch, the dial, the insert, the movement etc. are "period correct" and you need to find the correct bracelet for it, will it be considered 100% all parts original (like it came out from the factory) with a correct bracelet reference of course, but + - 1 year stamped on the clasp, or the year stamped on clasp must absolutely be '59?
P. S. i hope you guys understand what I mean, my english is not exactly good

[swaini3]

Ahhh, It does not have to be the exact same year. For older watches, if you compare it to the date on the caseback, I think +/-1 year is generally accepted. Some would say casebacks are usually 1 year older than bracelets.

[Dan S]

The bracelet is not original unless the bracelet was actually sold with the watch. So the answer to your question is "no", the watch will not be considered factory original just because you find a period-correct bracelet. If you buy a period-correct bracelet and try to sell the set as "original", that would be a false claim.

If you like the idea of having a period-correct bracelet, then do it. It's a personal choice. I sometimes like to have a period correct bracelet with my watches, but only if the bracelet is comfortable.

Bracelets were sometimes added to watches by the dealer at the time of sale so they will often have a later year than the watch. Not just one year, the bracelet can easily be two or three years later. It is less common for the original bracelet to be substantially earlier than the watch, in my experience anyway.

[Laurmsi]

Originally Posted by Dan S

The bracelet is not original unless the bracelet was actually sold with the watch. So the answer to your question is "no", the watch will not be considered factory original just because you find a period-correct bracelet. If you buy a period-correct bracelet and try to sell the set as "original", that would be a false claim.

If you like the idea of having a period-correct bracelet, then do it. It's a personal choice. I sometimes like to have a period correct bracelet with my watches, but only if the bracelet is comfortable.

Bracelets were sometimes added to watches by the dealer at the time of sale so they will often have a later year than the watch. Not just one year, the bracelet can easily be two or three years later. It is less common for the original bracelet to be substantially earlier than the watch, in my experience anyway.

Ok, i understand now perfectly,that's a very good information, definitely appreciate it!

[77T]

Are you trying to assemble a “correct and authentic” combination to sell the watch?

As mentioned earlier it won’t be “original” even if you find such an old bracelet (1950’s-1960’s)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tools]

A watch is only original once.

Putting proper parts on it will not make it "original" again, that ship has sailed. Some do try and make their watch period-correct and consider that their challenge. Some also lie about originality.

It is true that original examples do have parts that "code" plus or minus a year or two. Dating by using the numbers is not an exact process.

[Laurmsi]

Originally Posted by 77T

Are you trying to assemble a “correct and authentic” combination to sell the watch?

As mentioned earlier it won’t be “original” even if you find such an old bracelet (1950’s-1960’s)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No, I'm not trying to sell anything, I'm trying to get together the watch and try to make it as "original" as it should be, I'm making the watch for my own collection, don't jump into conclusions, i was asking just for my knowledge, not with the purpose of deceiveing someone.

[Laurmsi]

Originally Posted by Tools

A watch is only original once.

Putting proper parts on it will not make it "original" again, that ship has sailed. Some do try and make their watch period-correct and consider that their challenge. Some also lie about originality.

It is true that original examples do have parts that "code" plus or minus a year or two. Dating by using the numbers is not an exact process.

I appreciate your knowledge, i asked because i saw alot of vintage pieces for sale on different sites, even though they don't have papers of this vintage pieces and there is a big difference between the case and bracelet dates they attest that the watches are original.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Laurmsi

No, I'm not trying to sell anything, I'm trying to get together the watch and try to make it as "original" as it should be, I'm making the watch for my own collection, don't jump into conclusions, i was asking just for my knowledge, not with the purpose of deceiveing someone.

I didn’t jump to a conclusion. I asked a question. You have jumped to a conclusion about why I asked - never accused you of deception.

But now we all know you’re an unfriendly new member who should be given a wide berth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Laurmsi]

Originally Posted by 77T

I didn’t jump to a conclusion. I asked a question. You have jumped to a conclusion about why I asked - never accused you of deception.

But now we all know you’re an unfriendly new member who should be given a wide berth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mate, i asked a question about something i didn't know, and you answered me with another question, if you didn't know what to answer, why you asked me what I'm trying to do, did i mention anywhere in the post that I'm trying to assemble a watch with the bracelet and after that i want to sell it, was that my question? No. I asked something about a rumor, an information that i heard and i wanted to know if it true or fals. So from your question and the fact that I'm new here it is clear that you concluded that I'm trying to assemble a watch with intent of selling it. Be easy mate, I'm not unfriendly at all, again you jump into conclusions.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Laurmsi

I appreciate your knowledge, i asked because i saw alot of vintage pieces for sale on different sites, even though they don't have papers of this vintage pieces and there is a big difference between the case and bracelet dates they attest that the watches are original.

I would guess that most sellers who claim the bracelet is original to the watch are just guessing, or sometimes lying. Unless you have a direct connection to the original buyer, it's hard to know. And even then, people often have faulty memories.

I don't have any watches from the 60s or 70s where I am truly 100% sure that the bracelet is original to the watch. Even the watches that I have bought from the original owners. However, I have a few where I am 99% sure.

Notably, it doesn't matter very much to most collectors whether the bracelet is original.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Laurmsi

Mate, i asked a question about something i didn't know, and you answered me with another question, if you didn't know what to answer, why you asked me what I'm trying to do, did i mention anywhere in the post that I'm trying to assemble a watch with the bracelet and after that i want to sell it, was that my question? No. I asked something about a rumor, an information that i heard and i wanted to know if it true or fals. So from your question and the fact that I'm new here it is clear that you concluded that I'm trying to assemble a watch with intent of selling it. Be easy mate, I'm not unfriendly at all, again you jump into conclusions.

ok


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Laurmsi]

Originally Posted by Dan S

I would guess that most sellers who claim the bracelet is original to the watch are just guessing, or sometimes lying. Unless you have a direct connection to the original buyer, it's hard to know. And even then, people often have faulty memories.

I don't have any watches from the 60s or 70s where I am truly 100% sure that the bracelet is original to the watch. Even the watches that I have bought from the original owners. However, I have a few where I am 99% sure.

Notably, it doesn't matter very much to most collectors whether the bracelet is original.

Thx alot Dan, that is truly an amazing information, at least for me, I'm not quite new to watch collecting, doing it for 15 years now, but i see now, is never to late to learn something new and by getting the right information you need to get in touch with people that been there done that. Definitely appreciate it buddy.

[Styles Bitchley]

I think what you’re finding confusing is the marketing language used by some sellers to hype the watches they’re selling. A 100% original watch is very rare and commands a big premium. So adding the word “original” to a description can make a watch sound more desirable. Some unscrupulous sellers use it in a tricky way by saying something like “all original Rolex parts” which some buyers may interpret as all parts are original to the watch...when, in fact, it technically just means that there aren’t any aftermarket (non-Rolex) parts.

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by Styles Bitchley

I think what you’re finding confusing is the marketing language used by some sellers to hype the watches they’re selling. A 100% original watch is very rare and commands a big premium. So adding the word “original” to a description can make a watch sound more desirable. Some unscrupulous sellers use it in a tricky way by saying something like “all original Rolex parts” which some buyers may interpret as all parts are original to the watch...when, in fact, it technically just means that there aren’t any aftermarket (non-Rolex) parts.

[zapokee]

I think it's important to focus on condition rather than complete originality.

If my '59 bracelet falls apart, and I replace it with an identical '59 bracelet, is that OK? It's not original, but it's correct, authentic and impossible for anybody to tell the difference.

Original and authentic aren't the same.

[Laurmsi]

Originally Posted by zapokee

I think it's important to focus on condition rather than complete originality.

If my '59 bracelet falls apart, and I replace it with an identical '59 bracelet, is that OK? It's not original, but it's correct, authentic and impossible for anybody to tell the difference.

Original and authentic aren't the same.

That is a strong point of view, so basically for these vintage pieces is important to be the correct bracelet and authentic. Original is a word that over time has become less and less common.

[zapokee]

I have my 1971 GMT on a 2018 Jubilee bracelet (bought from the AD). I consider this fully acceptable as a secure replacement after the original one became too ratty. Correct and authentic. And comfortable AF.

[L.K Johnson]

If we take DJ 1601 I have heard that there were a variety of options for bracelets in the 60’s, which means that you could have walked in to the AD and said; “-I would like to buy that 1601 but I want the bracelet to be switched from jubilee to oyster”
And the salesmen would do that and then sell it to you...isn’t that a scenario where the +-1 year might have been in play...?

[Harmon Rabb]

Expecting a tool watch from the 60´s and 70´s to still have their original bracelet delivered with the watch... I don´t think that is common. Many of the watches traded for around a 1000 dollar at some point. I´m sure they changed bracelets. Took one that where in better condition when trading the watch many years ago.

I bought a very nice 1601 two years ago from the late 70´s. The jubilee bracelet is from 1971. I don't believe that that bracelet was delivered with the watch but its in very nice condition. I rather have that than one from the same year as the watch in worse condition. I might source a bracelet closer to the year of the watch at some point if it can be found in similar condition. But I would never imply that it´s the original bracelet for the watch. I couldn't do that on any of my vintage watches as I´m not the original owner from day one.