Vintage Submariner

[Mr Grumman]

Hello,
I'm new to this forum and Rolex, so please excuse any rookie mistakes. My father gifted me a Rolex Sub a few weeks ago. He bought this watch new in 1972, But the AD is telling me the watch serial #1869165 is actually from 1965. Is this common? I took the watch to an AD, and they sent it off to Rolex in Dallas.
Dallas is telling me that the hands are NON-Rolex. I know they had it serviced once about thirty years ago. I'm not sure what to think about that. I know my father would not have said "hey please put some non-Rolex hands on that watch"!
What do you guys think?

[TuRo]

Hello- better photo please of dial thank you . I suspect a repainted from fuzzy photo.

[Dan S]

1.8M would typically be closer to a 1967 delivery date. It's not impossible that it sat for 5 years unsold, but that's a bit unusual. It's also possible that your father misremembered exactly when he bought it. Unless he has the original sales slip.

Unfortunately, the photo is too blurry for me to say anything about the hands.

[RFC]

Originally Posted by Dan S

1.8M would typically be closer to a 1967 delivery date. It's not impossible that it sat for 5 years unsold, but that's a bit unusual. It's also possible that your father misremembered exactly when he bought it. Unless he has the original sales slip.

Unfortunately, the photo is too blurry for me to say anything about the hands.

It’s close. My 1.7 serial traces to ‘68. But OP’s is not ‘72. The hands in the blurry pic look off. Is that all Rolex said it was wrong? The dial? Movement?

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by RFC

It’s close. My 1.7 serial traces to ‘68.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Is this the purchase date, or do you have some documentation from Rolex about a delivery date?

[RFC]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Is this the purchase date, or do you have some documentation from Rolex about a delivery date?

I said nothing about a purchase or delivery date. A 1.8 serial should be 1968 or therereabouts for date of manufacture.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by RFC

I said nothing about a purchase or delivery date. A 1.8 serial should be 1968 or therereabouts for date of manufacture.

I see, so you are just estimating based on an internet chart of some type, which generally refer to approximate delivery dates. Based on the confidence with which you stated that your watch "traces" to a certain year, I thought that maybe you had some actual data about your watch. There are some people on the forum with first-hand knowledge (e.g. in the past, Rolex provided documentation from their archives), which is always useful, since the charts and tables are just approximate, and differ from each other.

OP, the RSC has already made the "necessary repairs" clear, and they are not requiring anything more. Personally, I would not have them do anything else.

[Mr Grumman]

I will try to get better pictures off my computer, but my watch is at the RSC. Im really doubting my decision to send it to them.

TuRo
The analysis says that the dial "has been repaired and paint added" Obviuosly they want to replace the dial.

Dan S
they do have the original receipt stating it was bout in 1972 for $250.00

[Mr Grumman]

Btw 5512

[rootbeer7]

All looks and sounds a bit fishy.

[Mr Grumman]

So Ive attached the repair order from Rolex. Everyone can see what it says.
My 87 year old father may have some memory issues, but he says he has the original box and receipt from the jewelers. ( Max Davis in Toledo Ohio, out of business now) He is sending them to me. Purchased in 1972. No Rolex paperwork that he can find and frankly Ill be happy for the box and the original receipt. Nothing "fishy" on my end. Not looking to sell it. Uninformed, and ignorant maybe, but NOT deceptive. I working on somewhat of a mystery here and looking for help and advice. Thats all.

[MrBlobby]

2,241,882 1970
1,900,000 1969
1,752,000 1968
1,538,435 1967

[alwayshere]

My read of Rolex's report plus the limited pics of the watch:

1) dial is original but has been repaired - not quite a "refinish" dial so value remains albeit its been repaired. Unclear if its a later dial or original to the watch.
2) the hands are hard to double confirm but the minute hand looks off to me - others?
3) its got a much later crown on the watch so its definitely been serviced in the past
4) Serial dates to '67-68 from what I have seen

[Dan S]

I can't quite interpret what the service order is saying about the hands. Are the hands non-Rolex, or is just the lume non-Rolex? I tend to think they are saying that the hands were re-lumed by a non-Rolex watchmaker.

Anyway, for the OP, you've got a fantastic heirloom and I'm sure it looks great on the wrist. There have been some repairs made over the years. If there's something specific you want to know, go ahead and ask.

[RFC]

Go for the “necessary works” of overhaul and replacing the crown and enjoy your 5512!

Curious there’s no mention of the crystal which is significant for water resistance. That’s why they consider replacing the crown. Perhaps clarify if the new crown will be period correct. I do read the report as stating that the hands are non Rolex but is somewhat ambiguous. If all that is all there is, that the dial and hands have been relumed, I would leave it untouched.

[Mr Grumman]

Thanks so very much everyone!
My read on the hands is that the luminous was damaged, repaired, and non Rolex. Not the hands themselves. Talking to dad last night he remembers damaging the crystal and it being replaced about 30 or so years ago.
That seems to "possibly" explain the repairs.
I certainly am looking forward to enjoying my heirloom and passing it along to a 3rd generation. With more documentation/information than I had.
I believe my last question will be... other than the crown, what other "necessary repairs" or service would you suggest, and do you think RSC will be receptive to my ala carte requests? I've read they can be a little persnickety.

[TuRo]

Can you get a really sharp picture of the dial please there are about 4/5 types of MTRS first white writing dial from c67 incl sunk/smaller 3rd and 4th line and thin (looks like v.light blue writing). Looks like it's a Singer version (centre coronet on L of ROLEX, 5 ticks and Big gap between E and X of ROLEX, but the the centre strake of E in ROLEX is unusual.

[Mr Grumman]

When I get the watch back I will get a better picture of the dial. I'm going to go with the necessary works for now and when I get it back dive into it further. I think with what they're suggesting I can't go too wrong with that.
In the meantime I'll keep browsing through the forums and learning as much as I can!

[Mr Grumman]

The watch is currently at the RSC. I don't think I can go to wrong having them go through the "Necessary work", and that's it. I will do some research about finding a vintage specialist here on the forum. I'm going to need an appraisal and some bracelet work done as well anyway. If it's not against the rules, please PM me with any suggestions for a reliable/reputable person to do that kind of work. Preferably in the US or Michigan even better.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Mr Grumman

The watch is currently at the RSC. I don't think I can go to wrong having them go through the "Necessary work", and that's it. I will do some research about finding a vintage specialist here on the forum. I'm going to need an appraisal and some bracelet work done as well anyway. If it's not against the rules, please PM me with any suggestions for a reliable/reputable person to do that kind of work. Preferably in the US or Michigan even better.

Respectfully, please take the initiative to search the forum. The same recommended watchmakers and shops to repair bracelets are posted virtually every day.