Crown Guard Question.

[redfred]

I am sure that this has been discussed before but thought I would pick the experts brains.-
Generally speaking when a case has had a little too much polishing it is always the Lower Crown Guard that appears visually thinner, but I have also seen examples of cases that have not been polished where the lower guard appears thinner. This would tend to fit in with a report that I read somewhere that it goes back to when the case blanks are initially cut whereby the upper crown guard is given more material due to the way they are ground. Could be totally wrong but nice to hear an expert opinion.

[Michael M.]

From my experience crown guards were not always cut perfect from the factory, I have had unpolished examples of Submariners and Sea-Dwellers (in some cases watches that had hardly been worn) where the crown guards were not quite even. On the other hand, I have also had unpolished examples were the crown guards were completely even.

I believe John had a post on TRF about the thickness of crown guards, I'll look for it and post the link.

Michael

[Vincent65]

I've seen this unevenness too, even on 'unpolished' and hardly-worn examples. I saw one very recently, but can't remember where, annoyingly. It was a great photo to illustrate this, and appeared to be unpolished. I'm no expert, but perhaps sometimes the case blank was just cut in a way that the notch/space for the crown was not always cut in the dead-centre of the 'protrusion' for the crown's final position... I doubt it was deliberate, or designed to be that way; more of a 'tool-watch, bit of a hit-and-miss' phenomenon. Maybe!

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

I've seen this unevenness too, even on 'unpolished' and hardly-worn examples. I saw one very recently, but can't remember where, annoyingly. It was a great photo to illustrate this, and appeared to be unpolished. I'm no expert, but perhaps sometimes the case blank was just cut in a way that the notch/space for the crown was not always cut in the dead-centre of the 'protrusion' for the crown's final position... I doubt it was deliberate, or designed to be that way; more of a 'tool-watch, bit of a hit-and-miss' phenomenon. Maybe!

Here's one at HQMilton - lovely example, which I reckon has hardly ever been polished, if at all (look at those chamfers and edges all around the case). It looks like it left the factory with unequal CGs to me.

[redfred]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

I've seen this unevenness too, even on 'unpolished' and hardly-worn examples. I saw one very recently, but can't remember where, annoyingly. It was a great photo to illustrate this, and appeared to be unpolished. I'm no expert, but perhaps sometimes the case blank was just cut in a way that the notch/space for the crown was not always cut in the dead-centre of the 'protrusion' for the crown's final position... I doubt it was deliberate, or designed to be that way; more of a 'tool-watch, bit of a hit-and-miss' phenomenon. Maybe!

I find it puzzling that I have never yet seen the Top Guard thinner than the bottom. I also have a 66 GMT which has never been near a polishing wheel yet the lower crown guard is visually thinner, as you say it must be down to the size/shape of the original blank, maybe back in the day they were not geared up to work to the fine tolerances that they now do.

[redfred]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Here's one at HQMilton - lovely example, which I reckon has hardly ever been polished, if at all (look at those chamfers and edges all around the case). It looks like it left the factory with unequal CGs to me.

That is an excellent example, the thinning on that is even more pronounced than on my GMT, and would tend to agree it has had hardly any polish.

[Vincent65]

Mine are even, however! (1/1970)

[vcnyls]

Just a thought (not an expert here by a long shot) - All watches were polished at some point (by Rolex originally, that is), so I'd think that would account for the inconsistency. Think that would particularly be the case invintage models where a lot more work was done by hand.

[Beaumont Miller II]

Here is my 1680 red that I had serviced a couple years ago. There were no service markings on the case back, and not a scratch on any screw head. It was the feeling by the watchmaker that the watch had never been serviced before.

As you can see the top crown guard is a little smaller than the bottom, yet the case is sharp, lugs are even in thickness, chamfers are original, present and period correct.

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by vcnyls

Just a thought (not an expert here by a long shot) - All watches were polished at some point (by Rolex originally, that is), so I'd think that would account for the inconsistency. Think that would particularly be the case invintage models where a lot more work was done by hand.

Maybe, yes, but I think in this case (pun intended) the notch for the crown was simply not cut in the middle - the crown guards are so uneven that I don't believe that polishing alone at the factory accounts for it. Just my humble opinion, of course.

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Here is my 1680 red that I had serviced a couple years ago. There were no service markings on the case back, and not a scratch on any screw head. It was the feeling by the watchmaker that the watch had never been serviced before.

As you can see the top crown guard is a little smaller than the bottom, yet the case is sharp, lugs are even in thickness, chamfers are original, present and period correct.

Good example, John, and gorgeous watch - mine also had no service markings in the case-back or on the screw-heads, and appeared unpolished.

[Beaumont Miller II]

Yours as well Karl.
Both are likely virgin examples.

[vcnyls]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Maybe, yes, but I think in this case (pun intended) the notch for the crown was simply not cut in the middle - the crown guards are so uneven that I don't believe that polishing alone at the factory accounts for it. Just my humble opinion, of course.

That's another interesting way of looking at it. I didn't think of the notch for the crown being cut out (in my mind I always thought of it as being just an empty space in the mold they use) but that's another good thought.

EDIT: On that idea though, if the notch were cut out after, wouldn't that affect where the rod goes through from the crown to the movement? Wouldn't an off-cut notch (even a tiny bit) screw up the entire watch because the crown wouldn't turn the gears of the movement?

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Yours as well Karl.
Both are likely virgin examples.

Yours is about the newest-looking m-first I've ever seen; talk about time capsule!
So hard to find in that condition

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by vcnyls

That's another interesting way of looking at it. I didn't think of the notch for the crown being cut out (in my mind I always thought of it as being just an empty space in the mold they use) but that's another good thought.

EDIT: On that idea though, if the notch were cut out after, wouldn't that affect where the rod goes through from the crown to the movement? Wouldn't an off-cut notch (even a tiny bit) screw up the entire watch because the crown wouldn't turn the gears of the movement?

I think the 'protrusion' for the crown - when the whole ingot was stamped out - was perhaps a fraction off-centre, so of course the position of the movement within the main middle casing dictated where the notch had to be cut out for the crown, within that protrusion. Just a layman's theory!

[Vincent65]

All this is speculation of course - it may be that the whole case-shape on some of these old blanks, when being stamped out, was marginally off, including the lugs, in relation to the final position of the movement, which might account for it appearing to be very slightly skew-whiff?!

[Beaumont Miller II]

Thanks for the kind words. However, To be honest it has the amount of slight surface wear you would expect from a 1680 from 1969 - 1970.

[stmoore]

Great topic
Love em
Mk 3


Mk 1

[GeoGio Greece]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Here is my 1680 red .........

John I to this watch !

[GeoGio Greece]

Originally Posted by vcnyls

That's another interesting way of looking at it. I didn't think of the notch for the crown being cut out (in my mind I always thought of it as being just an empty space in the mold they use) but that's another good thought.

EDIT: On that idea though, if the notch were cut out after, wouldn't that affect where the rod goes through from the crown to the movement? Wouldn't an off-cut notch (even a tiny bit) screw up the entire watch because the crown wouldn't turn the gears of the movement?

The cases are punched out from a solid bar ( that is "cut" out ) and then machined to the final shape. The are not formed by casting with the use of a mould.

There are many videos showing this procedure though one should have some engineering / technical knowledge as to understand the content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UuDJl93Z1g

[vcnyls]

Interesting. Never knew that! Very cool! Thanks!

[Beaumont Miller II]

Thanks George.

[JerimiahLee]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Here is my 1680 red that I had serviced a couple years ago. There were no service markings on the case back, and not a scratch on any screw head. It was the feeling by the watchmaker that the watch had never been serviced before.

As you can see the top crown guard is a little smaller than the bottom, yet the case is sharp, lugs are even in thickness, chamfers are original, present and period correct.

As John shared, I have also seen numerous untouched examples in my time that have uneven crowngaurds.

Also of note, I have noticed the same applies for certain lugs (top right). Often times it is smaller (thinner) albeit the watch never seeing a polishing wheel.

My point is that these watches left Rolex with these "imperfections" and is part of the character associated with owning such a great piece of vintage tool watch history.

[redfred]

Some really excellent information has been gleaned from this, I am just a 'newbie' in the vintage world but when I was just starting out I was put off buying certain watches after being advised by some well meaning 'experts' that the watch (from pictures) had been over polished based purely on the fact that the lower crown guard was thin! There is obviousely much more to vintage than I originally thought!

[JustinK]

Originally Posted by GeoGio Greece

The cases are punched out from a solid bar ( that is "cut" out ) and then machined to the final shape. The are not formed by casting with the use of a mould.

There are many videos showing this procedure though one should have some engineering / technical knowledge as to understand the content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UuDJl93Z1g

Cool video!

Is this accurate for vintage models as I just assumed they were cast. I can't imagine they had the technology back then to do it any other way.

[michel33]

Official Rolex catalog from 1974, I own the same in italian.

[omitohud]

Originally Posted by michel33

Official Rolex catalog from 1974, I own the same in italian.

This pic put it to rest about the issue then. 👍


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[linesiders]

Great shots & pieces!

I would say 80% of the examples I have seen and looked at, the 4 hour crown guard tends to be the thinner, something I usually look for as a tell ;)

Tudor being the same.

[CrownMe]

Originally Posted by michel33

Official Rolex catalog from 1974, I own the same in italian.

Wow that says it all.


See its perfectly normal for one to be bigger then the other

[redfred]

As they say 'A picture tells a thousand words', I think this safetly puts this query to bed with no room for arguement!