ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
27 October 2014, 11:52 PM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: newcastle
Posts: 342
|
Crown Guard Question.
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. |
28 October 2014, 12:01 AM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 8,391
|
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 |
28 October 2014, 01:03 AM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
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!
|
28 October 2014, 01:09 AM | #4 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
Quote:
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. |
|
28 October 2014, 01:12 AM | #5 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: newcastle
Posts: 342
|
Quote:
|
|
28 October 2014, 01:15 AM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: newcastle
Posts: 342
|
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.
|
28 October 2014, 01:18 AM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
Mine are even, however! (1/1970)
|
28 October 2014, 01:36 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Real Name: Josh
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Watch: 1979 Pepsi GMT
Posts: 312
|
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.
|
28 October 2014, 01:41 AM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,615
|
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.
__________________
|
28 October 2014, 01:44 AM | #10 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
Quote:
|
|
28 October 2014, 01:55 AM | #11 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
Quote:
|
|
28 October 2014, 02:59 AM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,615
|
Yours as well Karl.
Both are likely virgin examples.
__________________
|
28 October 2014, 03:07 AM | #13 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Real Name: Josh
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Watch: 1979 Pepsi GMT
Posts: 312
|
Quote:
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? |
|
28 October 2014, 03:12 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
|
28 October 2014, 03:18 AM | #15 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
Quote:
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! |
|
28 October 2014, 03:26 AM | #16 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
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?!
|
28 October 2014, 03:30 AM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,615
|
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.
__________________
|
28 October 2014, 04:03 AM | #18 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: US
Watch: Gilt
Posts: 1,592
|
Crown Guard Question.
Great topic
Love em Mk 3 Mk 1 |
28 October 2014, 07:22 AM | #19 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Real Name: George
Location: Athens, Greece
Watch: es --> A lot !
Posts: 2,327
|
__________________
Rolex owner since 1971. 5513 and 16700 the loved ones. DJ WG Jubilee 16170 for wife - U series Oyster Perpetual WG 177234 for daughter V-series |
28 October 2014, 07:34 AM | #20 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Real Name: George
Location: Athens, Greece
Watch: es --> A lot !
Posts: 2,327
|
Quote:
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
__________________
Rolex owner since 1971. 5513 and 16700 the loved ones. DJ WG Jubilee 16170 for wife - U series Oyster Perpetual WG 177234 for daughter V-series |
|
28 October 2014, 07:43 AM | #21 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Real Name: Josh
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Watch: 1979 Pepsi GMT
Posts: 312
|
Interesting. Never knew that! Very cool! Thanks!
|
28 October 2014, 08:27 AM | #22 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,615
|
Thanks George.
__________________
|
28 October 2014, 08:53 AM | #23 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: Jerimiah
Location: NYC
Watch: 5513 Meters 1st
Posts: 669
|
Quote:
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. |
28 October 2014, 09:18 AM | #24 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: newcastle
Posts: 342
|
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!
|
28 October 2014, 12:02 PM | #25 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Justin
Location: Jupiter, FL
Watch: 1530,1665,1680
Posts: 2,053
|
Quote:
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. |
|
28 October 2014, 12:30 PM | #26 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: france
Posts: 796
|
|
28 October 2014, 12:37 PM | #27 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Sam
Location: los Angeles
Posts: 2,051
|
|
28 October 2014, 01:02 PM | #28 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: RedSox Nation
Watch: U Talkn Bout Wilis
Posts: 5,421
|
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.
__________________
I'm a sailor peg. And I've lost my leg. Climbing up the top sails. I've lost my leg! |
28 October 2014, 01:11 PM | #29 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Real Name: Kevin
Location: Maryland
Watch: My Open 6
Posts: 3,433
|
|
28 October 2014, 07:18 PM | #30 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: newcastle
Posts: 342
|
As they say 'A picture tells a thousand words', I think this safetly puts this query to bed with no room for arguement!
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.