Just purchased a 1957 Oyster Perpetual - my first vintage

[arb9]

Hi All,

My first post here, glad to have found this place.

I just purchased my first Rolex, a 1957 Oyster Perpetual. While I trust the dealer that it is all original and authentic, I'd still love to post some photos and get a few opinions for additional peace of mind. I'm definitely going to be taking it to an AD as well. Thanks for everyone's time and let me know what you think!

[joe100]

Love the vintage dates and non-dates. Your OP looks GREAT!

[arb9]

Originally Posted by joe100

Love the vintage dates and non-dates. Your OP looks GREAT!

Thanks! I think it looks pretty nice too.

As an aside, I found a site selling another one very similar to this:

http://www.chrono24.com/en/rolex/195...num=6&tab=pics

What's interesting about the one on this site is that the model reference on the back has three horizontal lines through it. Then, the number before it, 6564, is written below. On mine, there's the exact opposite. The number 6564 is struck through, and below it is 6565.

Anyone have any ideas why this might be? Was it a mistake in manufacturing? Quite curious as to why this might be.

[CapitalIQ]

Congrats on your first and welcome to the vintage world! Looks great on the strap.

[SWIMPRUF]

Congrats! Clean vintage you got there.

[Jagatai]

Wow! With butterfly rotor too!

Rolex used whatever case backs were available. I have a 5512 with a 5513 case back.

[adam78]

I thought that the differences between the two numbers may have had something to do with the engine-turned bezel, but now I'm not too sure. Check between the lugs at 12:00 on your watch to see the correct reference number (unless it has been worn off). Sometimes bezels get interchanged, and perhaps that was the case with either your watch or the one for sale you have referenced.

Originally Posted by arb9

Thanks! I think it looks pretty nice too.

As an aside, I found a site selling another one very similar to this:

http://www.chrono24.com/en/rolex/195...num=6&tab=pics

What's interesting about the one on this site is that the model reference on the back has three horizontal lines through it. Then, the number before it, 6564, is written below. On mine, there's the exact opposite. The number 6564 is struck through, and below it is 6565.

Anyone have any ideas why this might be? Was it a mistake in manufacturing? Quite curious as to why this might be.

[arb9]

Thank you kindly for the words and the info!

I'm sure you all feel the similarly, but I love thinking about vintage watches in the context of their time period. What was going on in the world at the time, the technical accomplishments and those still to come, and of course, the craftsmanship that created such fine timepieces.

[SPARTAN2161]

Mine was a 1956 OP 6564. Love it and wear it daily. Keeps better time than my new ones....congrats~

[d.mckendree@yahoo.co]

Just for comarison, here are a few (not the best) pre service photos of my 1956 model 6565. According to Bob Ridley the dial is original. Mine also has numbers crossed out on the inside of the back case. The watch along with it's JB jubilee bracelet came back from Bob looking brand new except with a nice hint of patina on the dial. It's accurate within a couple seconds a day. Hard to believe it's 55 years old. I really enjoy wearing it.

[DG123]

Nice looking watch. If it keeps good time I would leave it alone and not let an AD touch it.

Originally Posted by arb9

Hi All,

My first post here, glad to have found this place.

I just purchased my first Rolex, a 1957 Oyster Perpetual. While I trust the dealer that it is all original and authentic, I'd still love to post some photos and get a few opinions for additional peace of mind. I'm definitely going to be taking it to an AD as well. Thanks for everyone's time and let me know what you think!

[d.mckendree@yahoo.co]

When I got my 6565 last year, I had no idea what the service history. My logic to have it serviced was to make sure the case was sealed to keep out moisture so the dial and movement were protected. Unfortunately no one in Chicago had parts. That got me thinking that if I found someone with the parts it would better to get it serviced sooner rather than later as parts would just get harder to find. Bob Ridley had the parts so I decided to sent it to him. He ended up replacing the crystal, case seals, and tube. It was nice that the crown was still in good shape and didn't need to be replaced. The watch passed pressure testing to 100 feet with flying colors. Bob is a little pricey, but he does great work.
If your local AD has the parts that would be really nice. Nice looking watch. Enjoy!

[arb9]

Originally Posted by d.mckendree@yahoo.co

When I got my 6565 last year, I had no idea what the service history. My logic to have it serviced was to make sure the case was sealed to keep out moisture so the dial and movement were protected. Unfortunately no one in Chicago had parts. That got me thinking that if I found someone with the parts it would better to get it serviced sooner rather than later as parts would just get harder to find. Bob Ridley had the parts so I decided to sent it to him. He ended up replacing the crystal, case seals, and tube. It was nice that the crown was still in good shape and didn't need to be replaced. The watch passed pressure testing to 100 feet with flying colors. Bob is a little pricey, but he does great work.
If your local AD has the parts that would be really nice. Nice looking watch. Enjoy!

Thanks for the info and compliments, yours looks great too!

[jatco]

A true classic.. Beautiful... - and as it has been said, 'If it ain't broken, don't fix it...' ...

[roro]

Lovely piece and welcome to the dark side ! Vintage is very addictive.

[cruvon]

She's a classic, congrats!

[David AP]

Originally Posted by arb9

Hi All,

My first post here, glad to have found this place.

I just purchased my first Rolex, a 1957 Oyster Perpetual. While I trust the dealer that it is all original and authentic, I'd still love to post some photos and get a few opinions for additional peace of mind. I'm definitely going to be taking it to an AD as well. Thanks for everyone's time and let me know what you think!

Absolutely love it.
I have a close relative - sorry for the crap pic.

[David AP]

Originally Posted by arb9

Hi All,

My first post here, glad to have found this place.

I just purchased my first Rolex, a 1957 Oyster Perpetual. While I trust the dealer that it is all original and authentic, I'd still love to post some photos and get a few opinions for additional peace of mind. I'm definitely going to be taking it to an AD as well. Thanks for everyone's time and let me know what you think!

Absolutely love it. Particularly the bezel and the raised 'Rolex' on the dial.
I have a close relative - sorry for the crap pic.

Found some inside shots too:

[Subexplorer]

Hello ARB9!! Congrats on your beautiful purchase, and welcome to our Forum.

This is a very cute watch indeed, and I imagine it will give you great satsifaction wearing and watching it on your wrist.

Regarding reference number, it was a common practice for Rolex, to share the backs of their cases within some "family" references, e.g. 6564 and 6565 or 6566 and 6567, among many others.

Difference between 6564 and 6565 is in the bezel, as it was well said by our friend Adam before.

You can see my 6564 example in the phot below. It got a plain bezel, while your has a fancy bezel, corresponding the "6565" reference. Same watch in other respects.

Then Rolex would cross the non applicable reference with two or three parallel bars cancelling the "non applicable" number, and stamping below, the applicable one. This can be seen on your watch, which completely original in this respect.

Then these references could have different dials, indexes or hands types.

I wish you´ll enjoy this very nice oldie.
Best cordial regards, Abel

PD: here is my 6564 of 1958 vintage.

[dddrees]

Very nice, Congrats.

[Rags]

What a beauty congrats...

[arb9]

Originally Posted by David AP

Absolutely love it. Particularly the bezel and the raised 'Rolex' on the dial.
I have a close relative - sorry for the crap pic.

Found some inside shots too:

Really nice! They look like cousins indeed.

[arb9]

Originally Posted by Subexplorer

Hello ARB9!! Congrats on your beautiful purchase, and welcome to our Forum.

This is a very cute watch indeed, and I imagine it will give you great satsifaction wearing and watching it on your wrist.

Regarding reference number, it was a common practice for Rolex, to share the backs of their cases within some "family" references, e.g. 6564 and 6565 or 6566 and 6567, among many others.

Difference between 6564 and 6565 is in the bezel, as it was well said by our friend Adam before.

You can see my 6564 example in the phot below. It got a plain bezel, while your has a fancy bezel, corresponding the "6565" reference. Same watch in other respects.

Then Rolex would cross the non applicable reference with two or three parallel bars cancelling the "non applicable" number, and stamping below, the applicable one. This can be seen on your watch, which completely original in this respect.

Then these references could have different dials, indexes or hands types.

I wish you´ll enjoy this very nice oldie.
Best cordial regards, Abel

PD: here is my 6564 of 1958 vintage.

Awesome post, thank you very much for the information! That was exactly the clarification I was looking for!

Your watch is awesome. Has it been reliable for you and did you have it checked out by an AD when you got it?

[Subexplorer]

Hello Arb9!
Thank you! I´m glad this clarifies things for you.

I have had this watch for about a couple of years now, and works very nicely.

It was serviced by an independent watch maker sent by the seller, inmediately before I purchased it. I just checked the movement visually before purchase, the watch opened for me by seller.

I like the dial very much, with its "arrows" and "darts" indexes, and "dauphine" hands, which give a very nice look to the watch.

These oldies like yours and mine, are very noble and reliable watches, and I hope it will give you a lot of satisfaction owning it. It is a little small for today standards, but I don´t care about size, reading the time is very clear anyway.

Enjoy your nice watch!
Best cordial regards, Abel.