5513 Maxi Dial MK4 Pictures & Feedback

[JohnOSX1]

Hi there,

i have just bough a 5513 from a dealer and would like to get your feedback on the watch.

Here is what i know (or think to know :)
- Maxi Dial Mk4
- Serial 6.2 Mio (points to 1979 ?)
- Nice fat inlay
- All tritium

Font on 5513 inscription has some slight dept (can be felt if going over with any sharp object)
Font on serial & "stainless steel" inspription is increbily shallow, i can not really feel anything once going over the inscription

Watch is running fine, UV light test shows no superluminovam everything reacts more or less the same way and is quite even

Here are my specific questions just to make sure there is nothing fishy about this watch:
- Mk4 dial does not perfectly match to serial of the housing, according to online information i found the MK4 dial should belong to housing serial of late 6 million
- the inscriptions on the housing are very shallow, not sure what to make of this, could this have been re-done during a re-finishing of the housing?
- is this crystal a rolex service crystal?
- the crown is the newer triplock crown as it look, so this must have been exchanged later

Anything else i should check in order to make sure the watch is legit?

Background:
this wats not a cheap purchase, i can still return the watch, it came with box but no papers. I will post pictures of the strap and box later, for now i am mostly focused on checking authencity of the head itself.
I know what i read online, i am far from an expert so i thought it would be good to get some feedback from real experts here.

I can provide additional detail pictures if required. I have not yet opened the watch since i am not sure if i should do this on my own. (Best way to open caseback of a 5513 without scratching it or wearing out the treads?)

thank you!
John

[springer]

Place some photos here regarding the concerns you mentioned in your post.

I'm curious as to whether you have discussed your questions with the seller. Maybe you should check with him, and respond here with what he tells you.

The other option might be to just return the watch and be done with it. Buying a vintage watch should be a pleasant experience and you shouldn't be second guessing your purchase.

[Dan S]

As JP mentioned, the photos don't help us answer your questions about crystal and case engravings, so the only thing we can really address is the generic question about the consistency between the dial and case serial. As you already know, a Mk4 dial is uncommon for a 6.2M serial, but I'm sure if you look at enough 1979 models you'll find a few with a Mk 4 dial. Are they original? Who knows. It's just going to be a matter of your comfort level with a watch that is an outlier from the norm. Everyone is different.

[fmc000]

The newer crown means that it was replaced during a service, along with the tube. Not something bad IMHO.

[JohnOSX1]

Thanks for your help!

I have added few more pictures below, unfortunately i could not host them off-site since i do not have enough posts yet.
Anyhow, i did my best to show additional detail. Further detail can be provided if necessary. I really appreciate your help!

The seller is a dealer with rolex-shop and countless good reviews on chrono24.
Purchase was made via chrono24.

The seller described the watch as all original rolex and all matching (old).
Caliber is said to be 1520 - i am planning to open the back as soon as i have the right tool on hand.
Year was posted as 1980 (serial points to 1979 but i guess that's close enough)

I really like the look of the watch and the condition looks to be quite good (but still authentic) from my opinion. The only thing which sets me off slightly is the very shallow writing on the housing, it does not have any dept. Could this be a fake case? would there be a way to tell if the watch case is aftermarket?

If the dial is real (looks to me like a real MK4 maxi) and the bezel is good (i am quite sure it is) i would not have a problem with the fact that the dial may not be the original dial but may have been replaced during an early service into the MK4 dial.

However, it would be quite important for me that everything indeed is authentic rolex and that everything matches in age as good as possible.

Would appreciate feedback by PN on what would be the aproximate value in your opinion.

thanks folks!
John

[JohnOSX1]

was able to fit few more pictures to the forum requirements in terms of size & pixel count

[JohnOSX1]

more pictures - trying my best on those detail shots of the housing inscriptions

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by springer

Place some photos here regarding the concerns you mentioned in your post.

I'm curious as to whether you have discussed your questions with the seller. Maybe you should check with him, and respond here with what he tells you.

The other option might be to just return the watch and be done with it. Buying a vintage watch should be a pleasant experience and you shouldn't be second guessing your purchase.

Amen to that very sound advice.

[JohnOSX1]

Can anyone compare the housing and its inscriptions to his own 5513 to tell me if there are any differences? How about the dept of the inscriptions, were these punched by Rolex or just engraved?

[1665fan]

The 5513 engraving looks off to me and too low to the bottom on the watch....I have a 6.7 serial 5513 I can check and compare to. It’s at the bank at the moment. The rest of the watch looks good with the serial, but 5513 looks too close to the bottom and not spaced correctly.....

[1watch]

5513 does look too low and it should say registered design at the top. Not sure if that was edited in pic and should post another with that showing (if so) and a direct shot without an angle to confirm if 5513 is too low. Also does appear to have a service crystal, which is common. You can source a correct crystal for these, but they aren't inexpensive.

[JohnOSX1]

the 5513 engraving is not as low as it looks on the first picture - i have posted another one below. In fact it has matching height with the serial number on the other side.

I learned the following (which was also new to me):

The "registered design" was used by Rolex until aprox. Serial 6.2 mill.
From then until 7 mill only the reference was put on the watch (like in this case)
From 7 mill onwards Rolex put "original rolex design"

So it looks like everything matches up after all.

[springer]

Originally Posted by 1watch

5513 does look too low and it should say registered design at the top. Not sure if that was edited in pic and should post another with that showing (if so) and a direct shot without an angle to confirm if 5513 is too low. Also does appear to have a service crystal, which is common. You can source a correct crystal for these, but they aren't inexpensive.

There was a transition period during the early 6 million serial numbers where the watches were missing the REGISTERED DESIGN engraving
before Rolex changed their engraving to read ORIG ROLEX DESIGN.

Below is a 6.2 million GMT 16750 which is missing the REGISTERED DESIGN engraving.

As far as the 5513 stamping, it looks a little odd to me also.