Submariner Flat Four 50th Anniversary

[Frakis]

Trimmy: thank you for sharing this with TRF. Obviously, many folks are interested how this turns out including myself. If it is admitted by Rolex that this is genuine, I would certainly not change anything. This could certainly be one of a kind, and demand a pretty penny from a collector one day. Please keep us posted with what Rolex says, and your decision.

[Stevec14]

Yep, these internet sites are only as good as the info they have from owners of those watches but are a guide all the same.

You see it today with different fonts etc. There's no great science to these things I reckon.

I do like my oval O though!

[Trimmy]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

This is probably as conclusive as it gets. Great thread

Is this further evidence that there were other variants out there at this time.

https://www.chrono24.co.uk/rolex/wat...-id6396543.htm

This is the same as my dial with papers for April 2004 with mine being March 2004

Apologies if l am wrong with this ? l am new to this, but when l look at the MK5 dial the 3 ticks under swiss made sit between full height ticks either side. When you look at mine and the other examples there are 3 ticks under swiss made with 1 further small tick either side.

Am I missing something ?

Thanks

[Trimmy]

Originally Posted by Frakis

Trimmy: thank you for sharing this with TRF. Obviously, many folks are interested how this turns out including myself. If it is admitted by Rolex that this is genuine, I would certainly not change anything. This could certainly be one of a kind, and demand a pretty penny from a collector one day. Please keep us posted with what Rolex says, and your decision.

Thanks will do.

I never would have believed a week ago that l would be today posting on a Rolex forum site about a wonky dial and all the, is it, isn't it fascinating responses.

[loupe]

I had mine down as a Mark 3 dial with a flat 4 insert.
I’m not saying the LV is a rare watch by any stretch, but this combo isnt seen often on these models.
All those I have seen so far are early F2-3 case numbers.

[frankoman]

Originally Posted by sensui

Awfully a lot of data points like you said. Anything is possible but i find it funny it's the mk5 variant appearing...when the bulk of these were much later in late 2005. Sorry to the people owning these "rare" examples but you'd have no way to prove this dial was originally to the watch...I've seen questionable things collecting vintage Rolex all the time in terms of originality/period correctness and is always contested from naysayers on both sides. I think one needs to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. No one but Rolex knows the truth and all we have are data points contributed by enthusiasts.

I wonder where the value is mining a Mark 1 dial/hands from a F serial full set that already has a flat four, replacing it with a Mark V dial? Here you reduce the value of the set. Presumably you have another watch to "Franken-up" or sell the dial separately?

What I have found is the flat four inserts are nearly impossible to find and are the absolute necessity for a real collector's set.

[koronet-kid]

I purchased a sea dweller in 2002 that had a fualty dial, I noticed after about a week it wasn't as obvious as your dial, I returned to AD they sent to Rolex who replaced the dial, if I were you I would make sure they don't just change your dial and return the watch to you.

I would keep it as is it certainly makes it unique, and if you don't wear it that often it won't bother you to much.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by sensui

Awfully a lot of data points like you said. Anything is possible but i find it funny it's the mk5 variant appearing...when the bulk of these were much later in late 2005. Sorry to the people owning these "rare" examples but you'd have no way to prove this dial was originally to the watch...I've seen questionable things collecting vintage Rolex all the time in terms of originality/period correctness and is always contested from naysayers on both sides. I think one needs to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. No one but Rolex knows the truth and all we have are data points contributed by enthusiasts.

Here's your proof

Originally Posted by loupe

It also comes with a round O flat 4 and five ticks as shown in this 2003 brochure.

[sensui]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear on my stance. I don't have any personal gains from either believing or not believing these dials are original to the watch. I'm just saying there were awfully a lot of data from other owners telling us otherwise. With the way Rolex mix parts in different periods...you can only guesstimate with what's correct and original...and I encourage owners to draw their own conclusions after research. That catalog clearly shows a five tick swiss made with a round O....which doesn't even exist in real life (that I've seen researching this before)...so I don't know how definitive you call this..is a printed catalog subject to all sorts of photo mods after all.

[loupe]

Originally Posted by sensui

Maybe I didn't make myself clear on my stance. I don't have any personal gains from either believing or not believing these dials are original to the watch. I'm just saying there were awfully a lot of data from other owners telling us otherwise. With the way Rolex mix parts in different periods...you can only guesstimate with what's correct and original...and I encourage owners to draw their own conclusions after research. That catalog clearly shows a five tick swiss made with a round O....which doesn't even exist in real life (that I've seen researching this before)...so I don't know how definitive you call this..is a printed catalog subject to all sorts of photo mods after all.

I totally agree with all your points and I'm not particularly interested in financial gain.
I bought my watch several years ago and I know the previous owner tried to find out about the configuration but came up against the same comments. My first post on this forum was to ask if anyone else had the same but I didn't receive any replies to confirm. Ive since seen several others the same as mine so it's obviously correct.
I'm not on a crusade to prove anything, I just want to gain more knowledge on the watch that I own. It's all part of the hobby and pleasure with owning any Rolex watch that doesn't fall into the recognised category.
I had the same many years ago regarding my double red with a 52**** case number, everyone was saying that curved case backs were incorrect and that the full serial number should be engraved inside. Mine was curved with the last 3 digits which we know know is correct.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Trimmy

I take your point, but surely the recent photos posted and original Rolex sales brochure images are conclusive evidence that there were other variants around during the MK 1 period.

I can only repeat as l have said throughout that l purchased this watch from new. It has never been returned to any dealer for work and the original hologram label is still present on the back ( not posted )

If l receive a letter of authenticity from Rolex, then again, surely this in its self is acceptance of the new information that has come forward during the last few days.

From your account of the history of the watch there can be no doubt it is an aberration of a thoroughly genuine watch.

Further, it's a poor guide to be referring to sales brochures or other promotional material. Especially Rolex ones as they do not necessarily reflect the actual production models at the time.
As an example it wasn't that long ago that I noticed images of a current model on the Rolex website of a dial variant that was discontinued years ago.
Also in the early days of the Kermit there were images put about of the Basel release versions which had lug holes.
No production models actually had lug holes.

Regarding the collectability of your particular watch with its quirky dial.
I would consider it will mean nought in the grand scheme of things.
If it had lug holes then we would be really talking about something

[Oryx]

Was this purchase by the OP from a UK AD or from a friend who had purchased it from the AD?

It would be very interesting to see how Rolex respond to this.

[faldoc]

Only time will tell if the value is affected. I'd keep it. It's like an "Upside down Jenny" stamp.

The worse the error the greater the value! Very rare!

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by faldoc

Only time will tell if the value is affected. I'd keep it. It's like an "Upside down Jenny" stamp.

The worse the error the greater the value! Very rare!

Stamps are different to watches.
But it could be worth something extra to the right buyer who already had every other variant of the Kermit.

[omitohud]

I don't think it will be worth more. Sure there is this talk about old vintage Rolex with defects that became collectible, such as tropical dial, wrong printings, etc. But ultimately it has to look pleasant to general public. There was this guy who try peddle so called leopard dial, or many pimpled Tudor snowflake dials on the market, they are simply ugly n don't make the watches more pleasant looking.

If I own the watch, I would keep it just for sentimental reason without any expectation, since its original Rolex. It's just cool to point out to others that hey even Rolex screws up sometimes.


I blame it on the autoconnect.

[Bfd70]

If it only gets worn once a year keep it as is.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by faldoc

Only time will tell if the value is affected. I'd keep it. It's like an "Upside down Jenny" stamp.

The worse the error the greater the value! Very rare!

Except Rolex isn't the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and watches aren't postage stamps.

If upside-down Jenny stamps had been printed by a private company instead of the BEP, and that company was just one of many competing for profit in the postage stamp business, almost nobody would care. Imagine the rate of imperfections, variations, and screw-ups of Rolex watches applied to currency or government-produced stamps. Then imagine trying to buy things with cash where, on inspection, $20s and $100s vary note to note the way Rolex cyclops vary in magnification watch to watch.

[Trimmy]

Originally Posted by Oryx

Was this purchase by the OP from a UK AD or from a friend who had purchased it from the AD?

It would be very interesting to see how Rolex respond to this.

Hi
I purchased the watch in person from the AD in Northampton back in the day and even had the bracelet customised having 2 links removed, which I still have in the set.

Interestingly yesterday when l returned the watch for onward inspection by Rolex, the salesman who originally sold me the watch came over and had a look for himself to remind himself of the watch he had sold back in 2004

The watch is now on route to Rolex with the clear written instruction that nothing is to be changed cleaned or serviced and the watch, is after inspection, returned back to me in its original condition. I have been advised this will take around 2 weeks.

I have said throughout that this is not about value, because as many members have posted, this in all probability will have devalued the watch. It's a storybook for the future whenever the watch is out of its box, hopefully with the letter of authenticity l am expecting from Rolex.

Thanks all for your contribution.

[Trimmy]

Originally Posted by koronet-kid

I purchased a sea dweller in 2002 that had a fualty dial, I noticed after about a week it wasn't as obvious as your dial, I returned to AD they sent to Rolex who replaced the dial, if I were you I would make sure they don't just change your dial and return the watch to you.

I would keep it as is it certainly makes it unique, and if you don't wear it that often it won't bother you to much.

Thanks that is my intention

[loupe]

There may be a possibility that they insist on changing the dial as it doesn't look good for their image?
It's Rolex, I imagine they could/ would do it regardless.

[Trimmy]

It has crossed my mind and that is why l have made the AD sign a letter of acceptance of my requested conditions of the return to Rolex for authenticity only.

This watc became my personal property when the purchase was made from the AD and should Rolex carry out any unotharised changes whilst it is within their possession, l would seek legal advice followed by whatever course of action should be necessary.

[SL BRABUS]

Originally Posted by sensui

Here is my mk1 for comparison:

"WoW" John...... You got some great watch collection my friend...^^^..

[thesharkfactor]

Looks like the dial was not perfectly square on the die when the markers were applied, looks like it has been a minute out clockwise. That is odd. If it were my only watch, I would insist on it being fixed -simply for the fear of being called out as a fake and the potential embarrassment that may cause...

My first Rolex (I bought new from an AD) had a problem too - a tiny fleck of metal adhered to the underside of the crystal, hardly noticeable but once you know its there its all you saw. They took it back and cleaned it...

Another Rolex I got (from a grey) had a finger print under the crystal.

[sensui]

Originally Posted by SL BRABUS

"WoW" John...... You got some great watch collection my friend...^^^..

thanks Tony, I like to keep on the dl and am humbled when I see some of the beautiful Daytonas you post up.

[johnnyjazz]

Originally Posted by thesharkfactor

Looks like the dial was not perfectly square on the die when the markers were applied, looks like it has been a minute out clockwise. That is odd. If it were my only watch, I would insist on it being fixed -simply for the fear of being called out as a fake and the potential embarrassment that may cause...

My first Rolex (I bought new from an AD) had a problem too - a tiny fleck of metal adhered to the underside of the crystal, hardly noticeable but once you know its there its all you saw. They took it back and cleaned it...

Another Rolex I got (from a grey) had a finger print under the crystal.

I agree with the dial not being positioned when it was printed, as well as the minute markers, all the text is off, looking as if it is running down to the right.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by sensui

You said you bought it from a dealer in 2004, so it should be a mk1....this means that the watch should have these characteristics:

1) flat 4 on the insert (your watch has this).
2) Swiss Made on the bottom spanning 5 minute mark ticks.
3) An oval O as opposed to a round O on the "Rolex"
4) R in "Oyster" should be centered under the 2 legs of R in "Rolex"....(seems like the case here)

Here is my mk1 for comparison:



See the difference in orientation/positioning of your Swiss Made on the bottom and the difference on the O in "Rolex"? That's why I'm saying it doesn't look right for a mk1......I'm not exactly sure what's up with the dial actually because the Swiss Made orientation makes it look like a a much later dial variation...but the R in "Oyster" seems centered with a non-oval O in "Rolex" as is in mk1/mk2.....not sure there is such a variation according to the VRF guide:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...ary+Submariner

Something seems weird. I'll wait for more input from others.

Is this a Y or F serial? Definitely one of the first releases right? Nice!

[sensui]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

Is this a Y or F serial? Definitely one of the first releases right? Nice!

This would be an early F0 serial lv...just in case someone wants to use it as another data point. You are correct.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by sensui

This would be an early F0 serial lv...just in case someone wants to use it as another data point. You are correct.

I would never part with that one, you'll be hard pressed to get one like it back.

[function12]

So, whatever happened???

[Trimmy]

Hi

I collected the watch last Thursday from the ARD having been returned to Rolex for a condition report. Rolex do not offer a authentification service, but when l spoke with them they said that a condition -service report will do the same thing as it looks at all the parts of the watch and if any part was incorrect then that would be reported as needing to be changed. You will see from the attached photo of the Rolex report that the dial is referenced as a original part.

Having now had the watch authenticated, which l never doubted, l am unsure what l will do next. Keep,or sell.