ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Ed Rooney · 22 September 2015, 06:22 AM

http://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/181868671601

Opinions on this 5512? Ignore the incorrect production dates in the auction title.

I just have a small hunch that it is not a good case. Maybe I am wrong.

crowncollection · 22 September 2015, 07:40 AM

case is badly damaged by incorrect polishing, relumed also ?

TimeToGo · 22 September 2015, 08:35 AM

Pictures of the reference numbers would need to be better...

Ed Rooney · 22 September 2015, 09:18 AM

Convenient wear between the lugs.

Ed Rooney · 22 September 2015, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

Pictures of the reference numbers would need to be better...

Not going to get better pics. Seller is hostile.

I personally think it is a frankenwatch. Case serial number is to 1960, caseback is 1963, dial looks like it is 1966 or later. Text between the lugs has been worn away enough to make it a little more difficult to authenticate.

toneafficianado · 22 September 2015, 11:26 PM

1952? Did they have a sub with crown guards then???

Ed Rooney · 23 September 2015, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toneafficianado

1952? Did they have a sub with crown guards then???

;-)

I don't think they even had Subs then.

But don't stand in the way of some seller's fantasy.

123Blueface · 23 September 2015, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toneafficianado

1952? Did they have a sub with crown guards then???

Hard to imagine it.
Didn't get manufactured until a year later and no, there were no crown guards then.

graphicsdump · 23 September 2015, 01:42 PM

Subs first went into production in 1953

Vauxhall · 24 September 2015, 01:55 AM

Wow, the crown guards is atrocious.

linesiders · 24 September 2015, 04:13 AM

I am not convinced the case is fake, unfortunately the photos do not show the Crownguards in a good underside or side profile that could better help ID. The rest of the case actually looks OK. Though the top profile on the CGs is odd, I have found comparable ones online with the slightly different shapes.

Careless or intentional? Dunno.

These are Tudors but show a few of the different styles of CGs:

kooltzar · 24 September 2015, 07:25 AM

Later dial than case and movement. Case badly polished. To be sure of authenticity clearer pictures of engravings necessary. Lume has strange colour (could be relumed), but not so far off hands colour and quite even, so not necessarily redone.

Ed Rooney · 24 September 2015, 07:29 AM

Have you guys ever seen the engraving between the lugs wiped out like that, and in the same way on both? Seems shady.

linesiders · 24 September 2015, 07:32 AM

Not unusual - what I can see of engravings is actually OK for that vintage

22 September 2015, 06:22 AM	#1
Ed Rooney "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Annapolis, MD Watch: Sea-Dweller 16600 Posts: 5,081	Vintage Sub Experts Needed http://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/181868671601 Opinions on this 5512? Ignore the incorrect production dates in the auction title. I just have a small hunch that it is not a good case. Maybe I am wrong.

22 September 2015, 07:40 AM	#2
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,261	case is badly damaged by incorrect polishing, relumed also ? __________________ watches many

23 September 2015, 01:42 PM	#9
graphicsdump "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Real Name: Scott Location: Murrieta Watch: 1601 TT Datejust Posts: 120	Subs first went into production in 1953 Last edited by graphicsdump; 23 September 2015 at 01:45 PM.. Reason: add image

24 September 2015, 04:13 AM	#11
linesiders 2025 TitaniumYM Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: RedSox Nation Watch: U Talkn Bout Wilis Posts: 5,544	I am not convinced the case is fake, unfortunately the photos do not show the Crownguards in a good underside or side profile that could better help ID. The rest of the case actually looks OK. Though the top profile on the CGs is odd, I have found comparable ones online with the slightly different shapes. Careless or intentional? Dunno. These are Tudors but show a few of the different styles of CGs: __________________ I'm a sailor peg. And I've lost my leg. Climbing up the top sails. I've lost my leg! IG:VintageRolexTudor

24 September 2015, 07:32 AM	#14
linesiders 2025 TitaniumYM Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: RedSox Nation Watch: U Talkn Bout Wilis Posts: 5,544	Not unusual - what I can see of engravings is actually OK for that vintage __________________ I'm a sailor peg. And I've lost my leg. Climbing up the top sails. I've lost my leg! IG:VintageRolexTudor

22 September 2015, 08:35 AM	#3
TimeToGo 2025 TitaniumYM Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: North Florida Posts: 16,830	Pictures of the reference numbers would need to be better...

22 September 2015, 09:18 AM	#4
Ed Rooney "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Annapolis, MD Watch: Sea-Dweller 16600 Posts: 5,081	Convenient wear between the lugs.

22 September 2015, 11:26 PM	#6
toneafficianado 2025 TitaniumYM Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Real Name: Alan Location: Australia Posts: 2,204	1952? Did they have a sub with crown guards then???

24 September 2015, 01:55 AM	#10
Vauxhall "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: Joey Location: Texas Watch: Rolex 116520 Posts: 69	Wow, the crown guards is atrocious.

24 September 2015, 07:25 AM	#12
kooltzar "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Zürich Watch: Submariner 5512 Posts: 922	Later dial than case and movement. Case badly polished. To be sure of authenticity clearer pictures of engravings necessary. Lume has strange colour (could be relumed), but not so far off hands colour and quite even, so not necessarily redone.

24 September 2015, 07:29 AM	#13
Ed Rooney "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Annapolis, MD Watch: Sea-Dweller 16600 Posts: 5,081	Have you guys ever seen the engraving between the lugs wiped out like that, and in the same way on both? Seems shady.

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