5513 1966 what do you guys think?

[Cheutc]

What do you think about this piece?

[edweather]

I'll just give an inexperienced WOW for now and let others give a real opinion.

[Urosfan]

All I can say it’s a good looking peice

[donaker]

Shouldn’t a 1966 have a gilt dial?

[roh123]

Originally Posted by donaker

Shouldn’t a 1966 have a gilt dial?

Serial would be helpful. This has a rare and funny caseback with sixth quarter 1966. A well-known misprint instead of IV.66.

[Cheutc]

It is a 1580xxx

[roh123]

Originally Posted by Cheutc

It is a 1580xxx

Personally I would like to see a gilt dial but it is indeed transitional. Some will say matte is ok and some not. As long as it is priced accordingly most will be fine with it.

[Subspecies]

Originally Posted by roh123

Personally I would like to see a gilt dial but it is indeed transitional. Some will say matte is ok and some not. As long as it is priced accordingly most will be fine with it.

Mine is a 155**** serial with a v1 66 caseback.








It's unlikely that this wouldn't also have been gilt and had the dial changed to the early matte/puffy lume dial (mine also glows for a while) literally within months as there are a number of others like this. So transitional I think is correct.

[Cheutc]

Does the R O L E X on the dial look abit thin to you or is that normal back in those days because I see the writing on these old dials look different on almost every other piece available

[Cheutc]

Originally Posted by Subspecies

Mine is a 155**** serial with a v1 66 caseback.








It's unlikely that this wouldn't also have been gilt and had the dial changed to the early matte/puffy lume dial (mine also glows for a while) literally within months as there are a number of others like this. So transitional I think is correct.

beautiful piece, is that a 93150 bracelet that came with it or you bought afterwards??

[roh123]

Originally Posted by Subspecies

Mine is a 155**** serial with a v1 66 caseback.

It's unlikely that this wouldn't also have been gilt and had the dial changed to the early matte/puffy lume dial (mine also glows for a while) literally within months as there are a number of others like this. So transitional I think is correct.

Each to their own.

[Subspecies]

Originally Posted by Cheutc

beautiful piece, is that a 93150 bracelet that came with it or you bought afterwards??

It came with the 93150 bracelet along with the mid font insert. An honest mid 80's service.

[Subspecies]

Originally Posted by roh123

Each to their own.

Agreed, and that's half the fun.

[springer]

5513 1966 what do you guys think?

5513's are quite popular. Great watches. Regarding the insert, I believe the inserts from that era were called "the long five" and yours seems to be a later Mark III.

[Cheutc]

Would you guys say this piece is worth looking into buying?

[Ignace Worang]

Imho depending on price, it is a worthy buy...

[Alfasin]

Nice watch

[stmoore]

Correct. That's the earliest if the MK3 (3.1). I'd expect it on an early 70s, not this watch. Long 5 is most correct in my book.

Originally Posted by springer

5513 1966 what do you guys think?

5513's are quite popular. Great watches. Regarding the insert, I believe the inserts from that era were called "the long five" and yours seems to be a later Mark III.

[themaninblack]

The dial on Subspecies watch looks like it is a typical and correct looking early matte dial. Even the lume having that slightly greenish odd lemon-lime colour in certain light. The OP’s watch, is quite different in colour, doesn’t mean it’s not correct. I really do think Rolex played around with luminous compounds through the 60’s hence so much variation.

[Alfasin]

Originally Posted by stmoore

Correct. That's the earliest if the MK3 (3.1). I'd expect it on an early 70s, not this watch. Long 5 is most correct in my book.

I had a kissing 40 on my 66. Rolex a bit u predictable
In those days.

[Xantiagib]

my 1.5m 5513 Meters first was also from 66, not gilt and no kissing 4, but it did have a long 5

[JohnBaker3]

The lume patina and matching pearl are pretty awesome.

One downside is that the crown and case tube have been upgraded; should have the twin lock to be period correct.

[Cheutc]

is it possible to find an old stock twin lock crown?

[mattedialdoc]

Originally Posted by JohnBaker3

One downside is that the crown and case tube have been upgraded; should have the twin lock to be period correct.

I disagree. This is NOT a downside. The crown and tube are disposable items that are made to be replaced at service. If you are not planning on getting this watch near ANY water or moisture...which would require you to in essence never wear the watch and store it in a safe with a desiccant, than get a damn triplock crown and wear the darn thing. I am as much a nerd and WIS as the next vintage collector, but this love affair with “period correct” at all cost is ridiculous. Are people buying watches to wear or just look at??!
(PS : I didn’t intend to be snarky towards johnbaker3. This is just a recurring theme and felt the need to comment)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by mattedialdoc

I disagree. This is NOT a downside. The crown and tube are disposable items that are made to be replaced at service. If you are not planning on getting this watch near ANY water or moisture...which would require you to in essence never wear the watch and store it in a safe with a desiccant, than get a damn triplock crown and wear the darn thing. I am as much a nerd and WIS as the next vintage collector, but this love affair with “period correct” at all cost is ridiculous. Are people buying watches to wear or just look at??!
(PS : I didn’t intend to be snarky towards johnbaker3. This is just a recurring theme and felt the need to comment)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well the reality is a 700 crown or 702 crown is worth more than a 703 so... I guess John isn’t wrong but agree that people might be putting too much weight on being period correct but that’s what’s collectors love

[mattedialdoc]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Well the reality is a 700 crown or 702 crown is worth more than a 703 so... I guess John isn’t wrong but agree that people might be putting too much weight on being period correct but that’s what’s collectors love

Oh 100% agree there is period correctness and value in an old crown. And I believe that what John was pointing out, and he is right. And that's why I keep all my old crowns after Service replacements are installed to pass on if the next person wishes to have that for posterity.
But what I'm talking about is functionality in the real world of watch wearing when the trip lock crown is superior in function and going to preserve the value of what's really important INSIDE the case.


------
Instagram: @mattedialdoc