Is this domed crystal too high/correct ¿?

[Rolessor82]

Hi guys,

Got this wonderfull 1984 5513 (see pics below). But the domed crystal is keeping me awake wondering if it's correct. I've had 70s and 80s subs with "lower" ones. But, maybe the lower ones are incorrect¿?

Thanks for your help. Appreciate it.

[Rolessor82]

It clearly looks like a Superdome T-19. Doesn't it??

My query is: if it's indeed a T-19 Superdome, is it correct for the 80s era?

[hutch300]

I am no expert and I am sure one will chime in but this looks like a 1665 Sea Dweller profile to me. I know some people liked the bigger dome (I do). I would not lose a wink of sleep over a crystal. If you like it be happy. If you don't buy a True Dome for a couple hundred bucks.

[Filipão]

That's a T39 for SD, can't tell if it's genuine Rolex part or not.

[Rolessor82]

I thought about that possibility also. Yep

[harry in montreal]

Def taller than the orig crystal on a 5513. I like it

[Zeus6542]

Love it.

[swish77]

The OP's dome looks cool, but too high for a 5513/12.

Here's my 3.7 million 5512 with (what I believe) is its original Rolex dome.

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by swish77

The OP's dome looks cool, but too high for a 5513/12.

Here's my 3.7 million 5512 with (what I believe) is its original Rolex dome.

Yep, that's like I expect...no vertical sides post bezel before any Superdomery.
There is an original plexi with the vertical sides but it's semi flat on top and a very soft circular edge c 67/68 MTRS first pieces....they are often a bit yellowy now too, given age.
I'm sorry, I don't know any of the T no's though.

[harry in montreal]

Op, What does the dial look like when it’s underwater ? Dunno if you have swam with it