1675 chamfers

[morafa4]

Hope this isn't sacrilege, but here is an interesting conversation at a different forum on the subject. Doesn't help my evolution/state of the chamfer styling question much, but someone else may find it informative!

http://rolex.watchprosite.com/show-f...75-unpolished/

[Micha]

Originally Posted by morafa4

Hope this isn't sacrilege, but here is an interesting conversation at a different forum on the subject. Doesn't help my evolution/state of the chamfer styling question much, but someone else may find it informative!

http://rolex.watchprosite.com/show-f...75-unpolished/

very interesting...thank you...

[LunetteVerde]

Not an unpolished specimen but with lots of metal patina battle scars




♛lunetteverde@Instagram♛

[CrownMe]

That is stunning. Chamfer heaven ^^^

[Vincent65]

yeah, you could ski down those things

[dukerules]

Gorgeous, gorgeous chamfers in this thread.

[AS1]

Originally Posted by morafa4

Hope this isn't sacrilege, but here is an interesting conversation at a different forum on the subject. Doesn't help my evolution/state of the chamfer styling question much, but someone else may find it informative!

http://rolex.watchprosite.com/show-f...75-unpolished/

Thank you for posting, I found this very helpful. There are so many examples of pieces with great chamfers on here that it's important to see one without (as per the link) in order to know what to watch out for!

[1675-David]

As far as I can tell, the case is unpolished, and I have quite a lot of experience in the area polishing metal.

[morafa4]

Beautiful watches all around!

I've got an interesting brochure dating to 1965 by Rolex that came with the period 1675s - and they have a pretty detailed drawing in semi-profile where they clearly draw the chamfers with a termination point right below the bezel, like @lunetteverde's piece shows (and not all the way to the crown). I'll be sure to post later.

It would be interesting to see if anyone could find an image of a NOS/deadstock gilt or MK1-era case - no insides or bezel or anything -- just pure case to see what the hard lines are, undistracted by parts.

[dstacy]

You can see mine from the 4th quarter of 1960 is the same.

.

[LunetteVerde]

Originally Posted by AS1

Thank you for posting, I found this very helpful. There are so many examples of pieces with great chamfers on here that it's important to see one without (as per the link) in order to know what to watch out for!

IMO - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder & what is vintage watches without her battlescars patina - tells a lot about the watch's life & the wrist that power the oscillating wheels.

Don't matter it has factory specs chamfers or not but I love to enjoy wearing vintages with all its dings & pitting - nice case / bezel is a big bonus of coz that not easy to find.

We are conditioned to chase the ultimate pristine condition cases and it comes at a premium. And beware of how much more you are going to pay out there for something that is not what it is ?

Cheers mates !




♛lunetteverde@Instagram♛

[LunetteVerde]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Every one of these looks laser-welded to me.





(I had to)

ahaha! Touché


♛lunetteverde@Instagram♛

[bluemartinifan]

This is what untouched looked like in a younger brother 6.7 mil 16750.

[STEELINOX]

Marvelous examples and top marks everyone !

My question is, were chamfers originally cut by machine or by hand?

I kinda suspect that chamfage is done by hand, therefore adding to the mfg process a "human" expense, and is one reason why we no longer see them in current productions...

[AJMarcus]

These pics are truly a thing of iconic beauty. Particularly since I believe It's very difficult to truly have an unfinished and completely unpolished vintage unless of course one is the original owner.

[morafa4]

I don't think there is any conclusive documentation that specifies whether it was one or the other, but the general consensus is that early Rolex chamfers were hand finished. I don't know where it was that I saw that even lug width had variations (as taken by calipers) on unpolished watches, and hence subject to minor and mostly imperceivable human error. But it makes sense, it's definitely a difficult/awkward angle through the length of the chamfer. Starting angled, flattening out, then angling back and disappearing into the case near the bezel. I feel as if this sort of eye for detail would need to be done by hand.

[CrownMe]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

Marvelous examples and top marks everyone !

My question is, were chamfers originally cut by machine or by hand?

I kinda suspect that chamfage is done by hand, therefore adding to the mfg process a "human" expense, and is one reason why we no longer see them in current productions...

I always thought chamfers were cut by a Lapping machine. Then and now. I'm not sure tho.

[aaamax]

I'm with you. Knowing the time line would be great. When did they start getting really narrow?? The moderns are nada.

Originally Posted by morafa4

It's an interesting situation defining what's what when it comes to chamfers. While the above watch is beautiful and has some super clean defined lines - it's still hard to know if that's factory. Unless the watch is NOS, like the gold GMT on the first page (where you can't unfortunately see the full length of the chamfer), its hard to say those are it's original crisp lines off the factory floor. Especially with the above posted watch; while it is in great condition, the bezel (which I'm guessing should be fat font?) implies it was likely serviced at some point later and may have had the lugs facets and chamfers refinished/accentuated. To look at things alternatively, if all chamfers looked like that (nice and wide), wouldn't most polished GMTs retain a healthy amount of chamfer?

Either way, I'm still unsure what to make of it; I guess I'm looking for an understanding on how the chamfers evolved on the 1675s from circa 65 to ~80s. Was it always long, is the above watch factory long, or was it refinished long? And were they ever short chamfers? Or is that a modern re-chamfering without going the whole nine yards?

Hope I'm not the only one in vintage GMT land with these burning questions