ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Robbyvm · 2 January 2015, 01:11 AM

Hello fellow forum members

i have a sea dweller for sale and received some remarks mentioning that there is something not coherent between the serial number and the dial

could i please get the input of the specialists because to my knowlegde all was correct.

serial number : 5.865.253 (i'll check the case for the number but i think i'm reading the warranty card right... see pic below)

jdmi32 · 2 January 2015, 02:13 AM

First off, that's a very nice watch you have there. Are folks saying that your watch should have a MK1 or rail dial rather than the MK3 that's on it?

I've read that the MK3's first appear in the 6.0m range, but as we all know (or should know), most estimates given even by the experts are rough estimates at best.

Personally, this "discrepancy" wouldn't bother me much but I do realize that some people are sticklers for details.

Robbyvm · 2 January 2015, 02:48 AM

Thx ! input i got is that it should have an MKI or rail dial...

Robbyvm · 3 January 2015, 03:08 AM

No other opinions ? Come on guy's

ndchuckt · 3 January 2015, 03:34 AM

5.8 is close enough to 6.0m that I wouldn't second guess. I don't even think you would need an explanation for this one. Who knows maybe it's the first MK3 ever made!? Hah.

She's a beaut!

azguy · 3 January 2015, 03:36 AM

You'll never ever know, 5.8 is real close to 6, it could have been born that way and maybe not. Find a buyer that is more concerned with condition than the dial issue and move on, it's a beauty if you ask me...

stmoore · 3 January 2015, 05:18 AM

Let's start here:

It looks to have a fantastic case and a near perfect dial. No one is 100% sure what came out of the rolex factory. You have a nice watch.

I wouldn't worry about it, but I would expect to maybe see a "late" mk1 in this case. Not many rails (have I seen) outside the 5.7m (so I wouldn't expect a rail in that case).

In the end, we are starting to really "pick sh!t with the chickens" as they used to say from where I came. At worst you are "one dial off" and that's within my personal acceptable range.

Robbyvm · 3 January 2015, 05:34 AM

hmm i might reconsider put a superdome on it and just keep it :-)

Daytonaman799 · 3 January 2015, 05:59 AM

Thats a GREAT looking Great White. Its hard to be precise with watches from that era it seems close enough to me to be ok but there are def more knowledgeable experts here. Awesome looking dial regardless with matching lime and fade. i like it!

dysondiver · 3 January 2015, 06:07 AM

id be very happy with it ,,,

Wesley Crusher · 3 January 2015, 06:31 AM

Man, that's a great looking watch. I'd think twice before selling it.

GeoGio Greece · 3 January 2015, 08:24 AM

Its really nice. I wouldn' t mind wearing it

Beaumont Miller II · 3 January 2015, 09:29 AM

My data show mk1 or mk2 (rail) for a 5.8 mil. Like Steve said 5.8 vs. 6.0 is splitting hairs.
Could be an early mk3 which is what you have.
Great looking watch. Some have taken to calling this the Maxi 1665 because the hour plots are a bit larger. In addition I see fewer of these white dials than most of the others.

Dr DRW · 3 January 2015, 02:48 PM

horrible mismatch you'll be lucky to unload it at all ... By the way, Where did you say it was listed???

Robbyvm · 3 January 2015, 05:31 PM

Thx for all the input.
So it is a little out of range, the reason could be that it's a premature MK3 or it had a dial switch... We'll never know.

If a potential buyer won't take it because of that so be it, i'll put it on my wrist next week and maybe fall in love all over again

The_Walrus · 3 January 2015, 06:00 PM

I saw your for sale posting Robby and find it hard to believe you are letting this beauty go.

watchcrank · 4 January 2015, 12:54 AM

Be a lucky buyer who buys it imho,

2 January 2015, 01:11 AM	#1
Robbyvm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,239	your input on my watch please ?? Hello fellow forum members i have a sea dweller for sale and received some remarks mentioning that there is something not coherent between the serial number and the dial could i please get the input of the specialists because to my knowlegde all was correct. serial number : 5.865.253 (i'll check the case for the number but i think i'm reading the warranty card right... see pic below)

3 January 2015, 03:34 AM	#5
ndchuckt "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Real Name: Chuck Location: Honolulu, HI. Watch: '62 5512 PCG ! Posts: 19	5.8 is close enough to 6.0m that I wouldn't second guess. I don't even think you would need an explanation for this one. Who knows maybe it's the first MK3 ever made!? Hah. She's a beaut! __________________ Chuck Of the Navy Diver Type IG: navydiver_guitarist

3 January 2015, 08:24 AM	#12
GeoGio Greece "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: George Location: Athens, Greece Watch: es --> A lot ! Posts: 2,327	Its really nice. I wouldn' t mind wearing it __________________ Rolex owner since 1971. 5513 and 16700 the loved ones. DJ WG Jubilee 16170 for wife - U series Oyster Perpetual WG 177234 for daughter V-series

3 January 2015, 09:29 AM	#13
Beaumont Miller II "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,615	My data show mk1 or mk2 (rail) for a 5.8 mil. Like Steve said 5.8 vs. 6.0 is splitting hairs. Could be an early mk3 which is what you have. Great looking watch. Some have taken to calling this the Maxi 1665 because the hour plots are a bit larger. In addition I see fewer of these white dials than most of the others. __________________

3 January 2015, 02:48 PM	#14
Dr DRW "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: David Location: Dallas, Tx Watch: Divers Posts: 323	horrible mismatch you'll be lucky to unload it at all ... By the way, Where did you say it was listed??? __________________ Rolex 1665, 1675, 1680, 5513, 16600, 16610, 14060

2 January 2015, 02:13 AM	#2
jdmi32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Real Name: Ky Location: Bay Area, CA Watch: 16570 Posts: 2,362	First off, that's a very nice watch you have there. Are folks saying that your watch should have a MK1 or rail dial rather than the MK3 that's on it? I've read that the MK3's first appear in the 6.0m range, but as we all know (or should know), most estimates given even by the experts are rough estimates at best. Personally, this "discrepancy" wouldn't bother me much but I do realize that some people are sticklers for details.

2 January 2015, 02:48 AM	#3
Robbyvm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,239	Thx ! input i got is that it should have an MKI or rail dial...

3 January 2015, 03:08 AM	#4
Robbyvm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,239	No other opinions ? Come on guy's

3 January 2015, 03:36 AM	#6
azguy Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: ------- Location: ------- Watch: --------- Posts: 12,609	You'll never ever know, 5.8 is real close to 6, it could have been born that way and maybe not. Find a buyer that is more concerned with condition than the dial issue and move on, it's a beauty if you ask me...

3 January 2015, 05:18 AM	#7
stmoore Banned Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: US Watch: Gilt Posts: 1,592	Let's start here: It looks to have a fantastic case and a near perfect dial. No one is 100% sure what came out of the rolex factory. You have a nice watch. I wouldn't worry about it, but I would expect to maybe see a "late" mk1 in this case. Not many rails (have I seen) outside the 5.7m (so I wouldn't expect a rail in that case). In the end, we are starting to really "pick sh!t with the chickens" as they used to say from where I came. At worst you are "one dial off" and that's within my personal acceptable range.

3 January 2015, 05:34 AM	#8
Robbyvm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,239	hmm i might reconsider put a superdome on it and just keep it :-)

3 January 2015, 05:59 AM	#9
Daytonaman799 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: NYC/South Fl Watch: Rolex, Patek Posts: 3,637	Thats a GREAT looking Great White. Its hard to be precise with watches from that era it seems close enough to me to be ok but there are def more knowledgeable experts here. Awesome looking dial regardless with matching lime and fade. i like it!

3 January 2015, 06:07 AM	#10
dysondiver "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: tom Location: northern ireland Watch: my fins Posts: 10,063	id be very happy with it ,,,

3 January 2015, 06:31 AM	#11
Wesley Crusher "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Real Name: Wes Location: Holosuite Posts: 6,345	Man, that's a great looking watch. I'd think twice before selling it.

3 January 2015, 05:31 PM	#15
Robbyvm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,239	Thx for all the input. So it is a little out of range, the reason could be that it's a premature MK3 or it had a dial switch... We'll never know. If a potential buyer won't take it because of that so be it, i'll put it on my wrist next week and maybe fall in love all over again

3 January 2015, 06:00 PM	#16
The_Walrus "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Real Name: George Location: Sydney Watch: 5513 Posts: 1,104	I saw your for sale posting Robby and find it hard to believe you are letting this beauty go.

4 January 2015, 12:54 AM	#17
watchcrank "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: michael Location: Florida Watch: explorer II cream Posts: 1,663	Be a lucky buyer who buys it imho,

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)