Post your Chamfers. What are the correct ones for certain models?

[ROLLiWORKS]

From wide to thin these seem to vary by a lot. We often hear too wide for most examples. Anyone have good examples of unpolished cases with original chamfers? Maybe we can get a guide going as a reference?

Spent hours researching the correct amount of bevel for a 1680 we're working on. A good guide would surely be helpful.

We cut the chamfer on this watch last week. We believe this to be correct based on the unpolished examples we've seen but sure would like to see others to compare.

[ROLLiWORKS]

[KarlFr]

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=652232


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tekno]

Nice work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[KarlFr]

Do you add material, laser weld, before polishing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ROLLiWORKS]

Sometimes the old chamfers are totally gone and polished to a sharp edge. If all sides are even we can skip the laser welding. If not, yes laser welding is required. We need a good share edge that is fairly even on all side. If we lap the edge over existing chamfer, they get abnormally wide. I've seen these extra wide bevels on IG with tons of likes, so it might not be a bad thing? We're still feeling out the general opinion.

Originally Posted by KarlFr

Do you add material, laser weld, before polishing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ROLLiWORKS]

is that the original bevel?

Originally Posted by KarlFr

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=652232


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TurboWatch]

Karl's 1680 chamfers look to be unpolished and original. His GMT chamfers have been 're-sized' as the result of polishing both tops and the sides of the lugs. The chamfers of the gilt era Rolex GMTs and Subs should be wider than the matte counterparts. The red meters first 1680 have wider chamfers than the red feet first 1680.

Basically, you can't just cut/reshape chamfers on vintage Rolex watches without knowing the serial number.

BTW, do you know why the 50s and 60s chamfers were much wider?

[MorningTundra]

Originally Posted by TurboWatch

BTW, do you know why the 50s and 60s chamfers were much wider?

Apparently they were finished by hand before leaving the factory



Sent from my cracked, broken hand wound phone. IG @morning_tundra

[ROLLiWORKS]

Originally Posted by TurboWatch

Karl's 1680 chamfers look to be unpolished and original. His GMT chamfers have been 're-sized' as the result of polishing both tops and the sides of the lugs. The chamfers of the gilt era Rolex GMTs and Subs should be wider than the matte counterparts. The red meters first 1680 have wider chamfers than the red feet first 1680.



Basically, you can't just cut/reshape chamfers on vintage Rolex watches without knowing the serial number.



BTW, do you know why the 50s and 60s chamfers were much wider?

Hmmm. Very interesting


All work done in the good ol’ U.S. of A.

[Fredrik]

Theses are the best pictures I have of the lugs on my unpolished -78 1680:

[NOPDK]

Your case looks great. Would love if somebody else chimed in if chamfers different on gilt era 5513's vs later Matt dial versions.

Here are some lug pictures of my fathers 1.3M serial 1966 Gilt 5513. I know entire history of the watch and it was lightly polished once in 1988. Chamfers are softened but correct. Hope this helps.

[sillo]

Weren't the cases hand finished? If so you could expect a good amount of variance.

[ROLLiWORKS]

These are some great shots.

Originally Posted by sillo38

Weren't the cases hand finished? If so you could expect a good amount of variance.

not really. Muscle memory and the correct tool set up it's hardly noticeable if at all

[sillo]

Originally Posted by ROLLiWORKS

These are some great shots.



not really. Muscle memory and the correct tool set up it's hardly noticeable if at all

I meant between different watchmakers when the cases were hand finished by Rolex.

[STEELINOX]

Aaaah, to see chamfer just "warms" the heart~

[donsidhu]

Mk5 Red Sub 3.3 mil serial.

[1675-David]

1971 1675... crown guard side almost no chamfer..





large chamfer...







uneven lugs, chamfers and crown guards was the name of the game back in the day...

[springer]

GMT-MASTER 16750 original, unpolished chamfers.

[athom]

rolex-submariner-5513.jpg

[ROLLiWORKS]

this is great!

Originally Posted by springer

GMT-MASTER 16750 original, unpolished chamfers.

[05carbondrz]

Originally Posted by ROLLiWORKS

These are some great shots.



not really. Muscle memory and the correct tool set up it's hardly noticeable if at all

I disagree with this,There can be quite a difference in lug thickness,CG thickness and chamfers on untouched Cases from the 60-70’s.

[ROLLiWORKS]

The bevel shouldnt change the thickness of the lugs. Its merely a bevel on the corner.

[STEELINOX]

Its in the SC being sold by "Paul Watches"...

Its not uniform.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by 05carbondrz

I disagree with this,There can be quite a difference in lug thickness,CG thickness and chamfers on untouched Cases from the 60-70’s.

Agree.

The manipulation of the chamfer is not for amateurs - its execution begins and ends with two separate widths. Not a "remove and smooth" away gashes and a let loose of the polish wheel ~

[ROLLiWORKS]

Chamfer threads never get old IMHO.


All work done in the good ol’ U.S. of A.

[southtexas]

Saw this yesterday:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fredrik]

I tried to capture some of the features of my unpolished -78 1680, the flatness of the left side, the chamfers, the lug holes and the lip on the underside. It looks much better from a distance...

[16610v]

Were those chamfers created by hands through the machine so each watch may have different look on chamfers even from the same model same period?

[nigelUK]

Not the best pic but one of my chamfers ... no idea if this is polished/unpolished but I like it