Your impressions of this early 1960s Rolex Sub 5512 please?

[pacifichrono]

I have been looking at this early '60s 5512 for a couple weeks now. The seller is quite reputable, but I know very little about vintage Rolexes and would hate to buy something I thought was "investment grade" when it was nowhere near that.

The seller states it is a 1961/1962 model with a 26j 1530 automatic (no photos at this time). He indicates the dial was relumed by a Rolex dealer (?) in 1986, and at the same time the worn bezel and bracelet were upgraded. Any comments from my Rolex friends?

[clemenry]

I'm no expert on vintage Rolex and I am sure one of the well renowned members will be along shortly to provide you with a more accurate representation however I do not like the look of that at all at first glance and I would be leaving well alone.

If you want to enter the Vintage Rolex market (particularly at this kind of level) then I would definitely not only recommend undertaking substantial research of your own so you have a good understanding of what you're looking at but I would also be contacting one of the Rolex aficionados that we have here on the forum and purchase through them.

This is a very good initial resource to start your research http://www.5513mattedial.com/5512/About.html

As I said I am by far an expert so my initial observations may be completely wrong and happy to be proved otherwise.

Good Luck!

[dkpw]

Over polished lugs?

[boring_sandwich]

If it were my money I would also be contacting one of the vintage Rolex experts to seek there opinion and see what they have available.

Maybe someone like Mike Wood @ http://www.theoldwatchshop.com/rolex.html

[t955daytona]

I'm by no means an aficionado on vintage pieces though I do have an unhealthy interest in them. Just off the bat that one has crown guards that have been polished to within an inch of their life and the dial relume has been poorly carried out to the detriment of both the value and ascetics of the watch. It is by no means an A grade investment piece.

[dandanthewatchman]

The numbers stamped on the case look far to clear and fresh for a 60 year old watch.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Saint-Just]

The numbers stamped on the case look far to clear and fresh for a 60 year old watch.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

Tom, speak to Mike (Wood) from this parish. And buy from him. Or Haywood (Milton).

[JasonM]

The fact that the bezel is misaligned for the photos clearly demonstrates the seller is of a deranged character and not worthy of your money.

[TAFKARM]

Dial looks terrible

[Wallasey Runner]

I'm by no means an aficionado on vintage pieces though I do have an unhealthy interest in them. Just off the bat that one has crown guards that have been polished to within an inch of their life and the dial relume has been poorly carried out to the detriment of both the value and ascetics of the watch. It is by no means an A grade investment piece.

Polished to death or the correct pointed crown guards, which are themselves a rare beast with a completely different look.

Another aspect for the OP to investigate.

[milwatch126]

Run as fast as you can and expose the dealer. The whole watch looks wrong and screams fake.
Fake dial fonts all wrong serifs etc. (Redial/ Relume).
Case engravings?
Case over polished along the PCG. But still has its original chamfers?
Fake bracelet end pieces.
Insert (later) and that pip?
However, a 1530 movement would be correct for this period of 5512 if you can open it and have a look?
Case back looks ok but you would need to see its inner engravings.

As before Run!

M

[inspector gadget]

Definitely a 'Triggers broom' there.

[learningtofly]

Polished to death or the correct pointed crown guards, which are themselves a rare beast with a completely different look.

Another aspect for the OP to investigate.

PCG's would certainly be right for this period. The dial looks f*cked, though.

[Haywood_Milton]

I have been looking at this early '60s 5512 for a couple weeks now. The seller is quite reputable, but I know very little about vintage Rolexes and would hate to buy something I thought was "investment grade" when it was nowhere near that.....He indicates the dial was relumed by a Rolex dealer (?) in 1986, and at the same time the worn bezel and bracelet were upgraded.

Oh dear. Before you walk away, as I think you should, can you confirm the identity of the "seller...quite reputable?"

Thankyou.

[clemenry]

Oh dear. Before you walk away, as I think you should, can you confirm the identity of the "seller...quite reputable?"

Thankyou.

I'm glad that my initial prognosis has been confirmed

OP this should be all the advice you need to leave well alone. As said though it may be worth exposing the "quite reputable" seller so that others can at least be aware in the future.

[Saint-Just]

Give me a modern Maxi Dial any day of the week. The lume on this looks like red leicester

Thank you for your contribution. Say hello to Curtis. Does a Maxi Dial look good with your shoes?

[pacifichrono]

Oh dear. Before you walk away, as I think you should, can you confirm the identity of the "seller...quite reputable?"

Thankyou.

No, just that it's not a UK seller.

[Der Amf]

Oh dear. Before you walk away, as I think you should, can you confirm the identity of the "seller...quite reputable?"

Thankyou.

https://www.chrono24.com/rolex/rolex...id13211966.htm

The Watch Company, 11111 Jefferson Blvd. Unit 4862, Culver City, CA 90231

[pacifichrono]

https://www.chrono24.com/rolex/rolex...id13211966.htm

The Watch Company, 11111 Jefferson Blvd. Unit 4862, Culver City, CA 90231

Thank you so much!

[Wallasey Runner]

Why the cloak and dagger stuff. Chrono24 is open to everyone as is WT here, why not post a link here and ask what people think. From the link we can at least see how it is advertised and consider the comments made by the seller.

I could understand if you were concerned about someone else jumping in first, but a 19 grand 5512 is a specialist sale at the best of times, never mind the current situation we are in.

[Andyg]

I cannot be arsed to do a serious investigation, except that the dial is wrong. It should be Gilt as should be the hands.

Insert is wrong, strap is wrong and i really don’t like the case. The engraving looks very sharp indeed.

[JPE]

I'm not a vintage Rolex expert, either.

How is it possible that so many of these vintage Subs and GMT's are f**cked up so badly?

Polishing damage is another thing which has been discussed to death.

But the rest... what happened to these watches, why and when? Have all damage (redials, etc) mostly happened in the official Rolex service? Or is the dial completely fake/aftermarket? If it is, why would anyone swap an aftermarket dial to a valuable watch like vintage Sub? Doesn't make sense to me.

[pacifichrono]

Why the cloak and dagger stuff. Chrono24 is open to everyone as is WT here, why not post a link here and ask what people think. From the link we can at least see how it is advertised and consider the comments made by the seller.

I could understand if you were concerned about someone else jumping in first, but a 19 grand 5512 is a specialist sale at the best of times, never mind the current situation we are in.

Because I didn't think it was fair to subject the seller to undue scrutiny without his permission. I was seeking comments on the watch, not the seller.

[Haywood_Milton]

I find it very puzzling.

Many times someone asks about a watch and others and / or I tell them that it is wrong, presumably helping save them from losing a lot of money. At the same time — as seems reasonable, that help having been given — I ask who was selling the watch and how they had described it.

More often than not, the enquirer then protects the person who was trying to sell them the watch. Why?

It is their prerogative, but personally I’d be fuming and be happy to state who the seller was.

A commercial seller exposes himself to limitless scrutiny when he advertises a watch, describes it correctly or incorrectly and asks for a sum of money that may or may not reflect what it is.

[Wallasey Runner]

I agree with Haywood. Clearly any sales pitch is a combination of words and pictures and those reflect on the seller, good or bad. We are not setting out to comment on the seller, but it is inevitable that you form an opinion on that seller based on what is front of you. All the way from trusted sellers who accurately describe their watch through to people who at best are incorrect and at worst are looking to deceive.

[~dadam02~]

Does the seller even know what they are selling? They seem confused - 1st para, "dial re-lume, bezel replaced, bracelet replaced, bezel inset replaced. 2nd para,"superb original condition". FFS.

[Haywood_Milton]

Is “replaced” a reasonable way to describe something that is fake?

Everyone can see that bracelet is outright counterfeit, yes?

- "69623" is the reference for a 2135 calibre lady's Yachtmaster.

- If it were also the reference number of a Rolex bracelet, that "3" would denote a steel and yellow metal one.

- "455 B" is the number commonly found on bicolour Jubilee 62523H end-links for a 36mm Datejust...not a steel Oyster bracelet.

This is kindergarten stuff for a watch dealer.

If the bracelet was "upgraded" to this in 1986, what the chuff was it on before - string?

[pacifichrono]

The seller, a chrono24 seller for 13 years with a 4.7/5.0 rating from 311 customers, deals in many brands and even clocks and parts. Hence, he is not necessarily a vintage Rolex expert dealer, which is why I didn't choose to put the seller under the microscope, but why I described the seller as 'reputable.' I don't think one can make any assumptions about the seller's expertise or motivations, etc. with respect to this particular offering under these circumstances.

[Haywood_Milton]

I don't think one can make any assumptions about the seller's expertise or motivations, etc. with respect to this particular offering under these circumstances.

We'll have to disagree on this point.

No need to thank respondents for their help, of course.

[NickRed71]

The seller, a chrono24 seller for 13 years with a 4.7/5.0 rating from 311 customers, deals in many brands and even clocks and parts. Hence, he is not necessarily a vintage Rolex expert dealer, which is why I didn't choose to put the seller under the microscope, but why I described the seller as 'reputable.' I don't think one can make any assumptions about the seller's expertise or motivations, etc. with respect to this particular offering under these circumstances.

Well I think we can make some reasonable assumptions about the seller’s expertise when it comes to vintage Rolex, based on this description. And that would have been useful information to put onto the forum.

You could have named the dealer and then written your caveats, which show you to be someone who tries to give others the benefit of the doubt and to maintain some sense of perspective.

We all benefit from the expertise of Haywood. I wish you had answered the question he asked in turn. Without that, why should he bother?



Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[pacifichrono]

To all members who were kind enough to share their thoughts and expertise regarding this Rolex I was considering, I extend my sincere gratitude. Your comments were not "unexpected." This exercise certainly proves that my knowledge of 5512s is completely lacking and I would be well-served to contact Haywood directly if I continue to seriously consider a vintage Rolex purchase.

Thanks again, mates!

[Euan Begbie]

Looks decent but definitely not the best dial or case. As long as price reflects this, I don’t see an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[milwatch126]

Really buddy? It’s a fake watch and it’s being sold by someone who should know better. A professional in a position of trust to the public. Of course a private seller can make a mistake but I can not except this. After this episode I would not buy a anything from this vendor.
Goes to show you really need to do your homework or pay a premium for vintage expertise and be very careful on Chrono24.

M

[Der Amf]

Request:

can you confirm the identity of the "seller...quite reputable?"

Response:

https://www.chrono24.com/rolex/rolex...id13211966.htm

The Watch Company, 11111 Jefferson Blvd. Unit 4862, Culver City, CA 90231

Further discussion:

I find it very puzzling.

Many times someone asks about a watch and others and / or I tell them that it is wrong, presumably helping save them from losing a lot of money. At the same time — as seems reasonable, that help having been given — I ask who was selling the watch and how they had described it.

More often than not, the enquirer then protects the person who was trying to sell them the watch. Why?

It is their prerogative, but personally I’d be fuming and be happy to state who the seller was.

A commercial seller exposes himself to limitless scrutiny when he advertises a watch, describes it correctly or incorrectly and asks for a sum of money that may or may not reflect what it is.

Is "replaced" a reasonable way to describe something that is fake?

Everyone can see that bracelet is outright counterfeit, yes?

- "69623" is the reference for a 2135 calibre lady's Yachtmaster.

- If it were also the reference number of a Rolex bracelet, that "3" would denote a steel and yellow metal one.

- "455 B" is the number commonly found on bicolour Jubilee 62523H end-links for a 36mm Datejust...not a steel Oyster bracelet.

This is kindergarten stuff for a watch dealer.

If the bracelet was "upgraded" to this in 1986, what the chuff was it on before - string?

Comment about lack of thanks:

No need to thank respondents for their help, of course.

Well, yes

[Haywood_Milton]

I think your point, Der Amf, is that ironically I didn’t thank you for identifying the seller on behalf of the OP.

Fair point, well made : thanky you for doing so.

H

[Der Amf]

I think your point, Der Amf, is that ironically I didn’t thank you for identifying the seller on behalf of the OP.

Fair point, well made : thanky you for doing so.

H

My pleasure

[RAJEN]

Because I didn't think it was fair to subject the seller to undue scrutiny without his permission. I was seeking comments on the watch, not the seller.

You could have just sent the information via PM to HM.

[cnjm1]

Because I didn't think it was fair to subject the seller to undue scrutiny without his permission. I was seeking comments on the watch, not the seller.

Any seller should be open to scrutiny , and I’m sure the seller wouldn’t mind if there is nothing to hide.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[bitt3n]

what kind of a world is this where we begrudge peddlers of dubious schlock the freedom to earn their checkered living?

let he who has not fobbed off fugazi trash on some chump eager to part with his money cast the first stone

[Wallasey Runner]

what kind of a world is this where we begrudge peddlers of dubious schlock the freedom to earn their checkered living?

let he who has not fobbed off fugazi trash on some chump eager to part with his money cast the first stone

Disagree. If someone is going to spend 19 grand on a vintage Rolex you want it to be right and clearly the advice on many forums is to buy from a trusted source.

Those trusted dealers have taken years to gain their reputations as a safe pair of hands, whereas the bad guys can have their reputations formed in a single transaction or two.

The OP would be wise to check out the list of approved or recommended vintage Rolex dealers on TRF.

[pacifichrono]

...The OP would be wise to check out the list of approved or recommended vintage Rolex dealers on TRF.

Thanks for the tip. I've actually been a 'non-practicing' member there for many years!

[Sonos]

Interesting thread. I love the knowledge on here.