Reply With QuoteHave you asked the seller of the spring bars are original? And also a copy of the original owners bank statement, naturally...
Looks nice, bezel pip and probably bezel in that case looks like a service replacement.
I noticed this 5513 and wondered what the general opinion is of the watch. It's from 66 with no box or papers, but has been serviced and had a new plexi fitted. It's advertised at £4500 and speaking with them I'm sure there is a deal to be done.
http://www.attenboroughjewellers.co....5513-WATCH.htm
Have you asked the seller of the spring bars are original? And also a copy of the original owners bank statement, naturally...
Looks nice, bezel pip and probably bezel in that case looks like a service replacement.
Kier there will be more expert advice offered shortly I am sure, but for what it's worth I would take a second look at the bezel insert and the bracelet, they may not be original.
These are lovely watches, I have one from 67/8, and a real pleasure to wear.
On quick inspection the watch has over-polished soft lugs (I'd say its been serviced by someone other than Rolex). The lugs also are different lengths.Originally Posted by Kier333
Personally (just me) I wouldn't touch it.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes looks like a service replacement.
Lol - better check on the spring bars first!!!
Been polished to death.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I am by means no expert and sure there are more knowledgeable members who will reply but I echo the comments regarding the bezel instert and bracelet, the bezel looks like an aftermarket replacement and the bracelet looks as though it's from a later model not original to the watch
IMHO looks like a bit of a pebble..... i.e bit too polished esp. lower right lug
Top RHS one very soft and over-polished too
Do people expect a Rolex from the 60's to have never been polished??
I'm also amazed as to what people can discern from 3 crap photos.
I agree, comments are a bit over the top. (as usual)
Watch has been polished, has a later insert and bracelet. it not the worst I've ever seen and would look presentable with a bit of work, period correct bracelet and insert could be sourced and fitted.
The money's in the dial and hands which look fine to me.
good photos can either make or break a sale plus enough information can be ascertained from the photos shown.
I understand it's a 60's watch and should have been polished.
But this one has been polished awfully
I agree to a point but these photo's don't show the lug pics 'end on' which gives you a better idea of how much metal has been removed.
Also it's worth pointing out that on lots of older cases lug thickness varied from new,especially the crown side which were known to be thinner than the other side for aesthetic purposes so it makes you wonder how many of these cases have been actually over polished or whether they have had a few services and got the correct wear for the year?
Correct they did vary in thickness to the naked eye but the lugs in the pictures are shorter on the RHS top and bottom .
Definitely a pass from me
I like these less than perfect old subs. They aren't the same sought of investment as the mint ones but they look just as good on the wrist imho. As long as the price reflects condition, I'm in.
Sharp lug edges and Rolex brush totally gone.
Later date bracelet.
No go, if I were you.
2015xx serial no. would indicate its a 1968 and not 1966 as stated, could still be a metres first dial though.
Personally I'd go for a nice 14060/14060M.
I wouldn't - different watch all together. (the main different is the Plexi glass)
OP - a 66 should really have a gilt dial in my book. Bezel insert is later (should be a much fatter font), strap should be riveted (mine does not have a clasp lock)
And finally, if original (like mine) it should have a twin lock winder, NOT a triple lock.
And yes a bit to much polish for me.
My 2 Pence worth
Too late for gilt, serial no. puts it at 1968 not 66.I wouldn't - different watch all together. (the main different is the Plexi glass)
OP - a 66 should really have a gilt dial in my book. Bezel insert is later (should be a much fatter font), strap should be riveted (mine does not have a clasp lock)
And finally, if original (like mine
And yes a bit to much polish for me.
My 2 Pence worth
And that is exactly the Point... This one is overpriced for this Kind of condition...
agreed.
If you cannot see what is being discussed (even with the photos posted) then it's not very helpful to buyers.
There is no such thing as 'correct wear for the year'. Occasionally watches pop up that have never been polished and others have been done to death by third party service outfits.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Hmmm, same lineage and as you would expect from Rolex gradual improvements over the years. The 5513 is a classic and desirable reference but you pay for the privilege, IMO the 14060 is a good choice of Sub ND.
The watch in the link would not suit the OP who wants an original watch (no non OEM components) and has advised that its best to buy privately from original owner.
Nah, as Andy posted - different watch.
14060 is good but not the same.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
+1
Horses for courses I suppose. A bit like comparing an air-cooled 911 with a water cooled one. Both are very capable, however the 5513 just has a bit more character. But ask youself which one would Che wear.
I had a 14060 a few years ago, sold it, along with a 114060
Although I love the 5513 and have a rather nice one, it's clearly not a "better" watch than the 14060. If you like a plexi crystal and/or matt dial it's the way to go - otherwise the 14060 is a more modern watch and movement (with whatever benefits come with that).
I don't think anyone said "better", just different.
Posting Permissions
