What can you tell me about my 1500?

[russellnyc]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1344173378.539264.jpg

I have had this watch for 15 years -- it was my first rolex, and I paid about $1,000 for it. Since then, it has been a daily wearer, a non-working paperweight, and now a delicate special occasion dress watch which I treasure. Within a few days of buying it, I took it to Rolex NYC and asked them to authenticate it for me. They did, and said it was genuine. It ran well for a while, and then began to stop periodically such that it couldn't be trusted, so into the watch drawer it went. Years later, down on money but in need of a working dress watch, I had it serviced by a very bad independent (47th St. Russian guy referred by a friend, etc.) who left the watch in poor condition so I had to have it re-serviced by someone else. More time in the drawer. A couple years ago, I sent it again to Rolex NYC and they told me they wanted to "replace faded, yellowed dial, and non-luminous hands" (ha ha, no thanks) but more importantly they said they couldn't guarantee water-resistance with the bezel, which, although a genuine Rolex part, was not original to my watch, and they wanted to replace it with the correct smooth bezel. First I'd heard of that, so I was a bit surprised. A main reason I had bought this watch originally was because I liked the machined bezel. Eventually found a good Rolex watchmaker through AD Lux Bond & Green for a fullservice, and the watch came back in good shape. Every once in a while, if I haven't worn it in a while, it will be hard to restart -- don't know if this is normal for a 1950s watch, or of perhaps there's something to the bezel being bad for water resistance.

Anyway, here she is:

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1344173424.331127.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1344173449.633630.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1344173478.263396.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1344173499.314266.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1344173515.598372.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1344173530.045751.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1344173584.747452.jpg

It's a 9400xx S/N, which I believe dates it from 1953. It came on a stretch (i.e. spring loaded) rivet bracelet which broke long ago (still have the remains), and after wearing on a strap for years, I eventually bought this 1970s replacement rivet, which completes the look.

What can you tell me about it? I have a strong suspicion that the dial isn't original, but have no idea. It seems like it could be an earlier replacement installed to "modernize" the watch at some point. Even if she's a frankenwatch, I still love her, but I'm curious.

Thanks in advance!

[mdw3]

Watch is definitely not from 1953.

Michael

[Daytona4Me]

Originally Posted by mdw3

Watch is definitely not from 1953.

Michael

1986 perhaps?

[russellnyc]

Originally Posted by Daytona4Me

1986 perhaps?

Hm, can you let me know why you think this? I get that the dial/hands may be replaced, but the case s/n is from the 50s, and Rolex told me the s/n matched the movement.

[Daytona4Me]

Originally Posted by russellnyc

Hm, can you let me know why you think this? I get that the dial/hands may be replaced, but the case s/n is from the 50s, and Rolex told me the s/n matched the movement.

I just did a Google search on Rolex serial numbers. 9400XX would appear to be a 1952 item according to one of the sites:

http://www.bernardwatch.com/Rolex-Serial-Numbers

Whereas another one gives 1986 as the date:

http://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-wat...date-year.html


You probably need an expert to chime in.

[russellnyc]

The s/n chart I got from this forum says 1953.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1344181508.488477.jpg

[Paul]

Around 1953 / 1954 Rolex changed their numbering system. This means that a 940xxx serial number could have been made in either 1953 or 1963.

1963 would seem about just right for your fine watch. Typical styling of that era and IMO, the machined bezel is a classy enhancement too.

It's a sharp looking dress Rolex

[Darlinboy]

1963 almost certainly. If you have reason to take off the caseback for a future service or just out of curiosity, the inside of the caseback will likely be stamped with the quarter (roman numeral) and year (arabic) it was made. The movement for a 1963 1500 should be a 1565 non-quickset as quickset was not yet introduced IIRC.

Either way, very nice looking watch - I am also a fan of that engine turned bezel. Enjoy it!

[russellnyc]

That's great news! If it's 1963 instead of 1953, it probably means that the hands and dial are original, because they look like ones from that era, unlike the pretty dart hands and markers from the 50s or the blockier markers from the 70s. It is indeed non quick set which actually leads me to wear it less because it takes forever to set and I'm always worried about damaging the crown tube.