6239 help needed

[justthebezel]

I own a few newer Rolexes but nothing really vintage. Please see the photo attached and point out any obvious issues. Any help is appreciated. I can get more photos but wanted to see if it's worth pursuing.

[Dan S]

I know almost nothing about these, except that it obviously appears to be a Floating Daytona dial. You're a brave man wading into the deep end like this for your first vintage, especially if you truly don't have a lot of first-hand knowledge. Good luck!

[justthebezel]

I have no Rolex vintage experience but a great deal of vintage Speedmaster experience...doesn't help a bit with this one.

[AJMarcus]

Hang on. The Vintage Daytona experts will be stoping by shortly

[swish77]

Looks like a nice early "small Daytona" dial, I'm guessing '66-'67ish. What's the beginning of the serial number? Cool rivet bracelet.

As for a full vetting, you'd need to see many, many more and better photographs, including of the movement, close-ups of the dial, all four lugs, UV photo of dial/hands, serial and reference engravings, etc .....

[justthebezel]

That's a start, I guess. Thanks. The seller placed it as 1964, but I have not seen the serial or movement. I don't see a serial on the movement as I'm used to with old Speedmasters, so how does know if the movement has been replaced on these?

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by swish77

Looks like a nice early "small Daytona" dial, I'm guessing '66-'67ish.

"Small" or "Floating"? Or is that the same thing?

Originally Posted by justthebezel

I don't see a serial on the movement as I'm used to with old Speedmasters, so how does know if the movement has been replaced on these?

There is sometimes a number on the base-plate, but it is not generally used to identify Rolex watches. The serial is on the case, between the lugs. It should be consistent with the production year of the number inside the case-back, at least within a couple of years. There is no easy way to determine if the movement is original except for careful inspection to determine that it is period-correct. Rolex does not provide extracts.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Dan S

"Small" or "Floating"? Or is that the same thing?

The reference to "floating" is usually when the word "Daytona" is slightly elevated above the center sub-dial, unlike on these earlier Daytonas that sometimes had the word on the upper portion of the dial. The word was big on some dials, and small on others.

Originally Posted by justthebezel

And how about some quick impressions of this Daytona on ebay? The seller sells mostly junk, so this does not fit with his inventory. I'm guessing it must have a couple of glaring issues? Dial? Bezel?

Buying off of eBay is a big risk, even for the most educated of vintage Rolex hobbyist. I just wouldn't do it, especially with such a high-priced item.

If you're truly in the market for a four-digit Daytona, I'd spend a couple of dozen hours reading about them and studying dials, bezels, cases, movements, variations, etc ... That's part of the fun anyway, and then you could compare any potential watch purchase with good known examples. Check out the archives on HQ Milton, Sheartime, and other dealers. That's where I'd start.

[1watch]

Originally Posted by swish77

The reference to "floating" is usually when the word "Daytona" is slightly elevated above the center sub-dial, unlike on these earlier Daytonas that sometimes had the word on the upper portion of the dial. The word was big on some dials, and small on others.




Buying off of eBay is a big risk, even for the most educated of vintage Rolex hobbyist. I just wouldn't do it, especially with such a high-priced item.

If you're truly in the market for a four-digit Daytona, I'd spend a couple of dozen hours reading about them and studying dials, bezels, cases, movements, variations, etc ... That's part of the fun anyway, and then you could compare any potential watch purchase with good known examples. Check out the archives on HQ Milton, Sheartime, and other dealers. That's where I'd start.

Agree with swish77 about eBay risk on a big ticket and often faked or pieced together item such as a vintage Daytona. Also good advice about the research and thrill of the hunt fun.

Regarding the dial nomenclature, I too think “floating” was more often used to describe the 6263 reference among the 4 series, where some big red dials had the Daytona script elevated away from the lower sub-dial. For context, here’s a pic of the “big Daytona” dial signature, where the Daytona wording is larger and spaced. The dial text lines have a pyramid type effect on the big Daytona. The second pic shows the “floating Daytona” print on a 6263 for comparison.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by swish77

The reference to "floating" is usually when the word "Daytona" is slightly elevated above the center sub-dial, unlike on these earlier Daytonas that sometimes had the word on the upper portion of the dial. The word was big on some dials, and small on others.

Thanks for that explanation. I was confused because in this blogpost, "floating" is used to describe the OP dial where the "DAYTONA" is floating below "COSMOGRAPH".
https://www.phillips.com/article/307...ograph-daytona

Also in these listings:
https://www.craftandtailored.com/pro...oating-daytona
https://www.phillips.com/detail/rolex/CH080217/144
https://robertmaron.com/rolex-dayton...ial-steel.html
https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/...2-details.aspx
https://lunaroyster.com/product/1964...wiss-t-dial-2/
etc.

[justthebezel]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Thanks for that explanation. I was confused because in this blogpost, "floating" is used to describe the OP dial where the "DAYTONA" is floating below "COSMOGRAPH".
https://www.phillips.com/article/307...ograph-daytona

Also in these listings:
https://www.craftandtailored.com/pro...oating-daytona
https://www.phillips.com/detail/rolex/CH080217/144
https://robertmaron.com/rolex-dayton...ial-steel.html
https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/...2-details.aspx
https://lunaroyster.com/product/1964...wiss-t-dial-2/
etc.

From my brief foray so far, "floating" is not that cut and dried. I'll have to wait and see which explanation is most "buoyant" and able to "rise to the top."

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Thanks for that explanation. I was confused because in this blogpost, "floating" is used to describe the OP dial where the "DAYTONA" is floating below "COSMOGRAPH".
https://www.phillips.com/article/307...ograph-daytona

Also in these listings:
https://www.craftandtailored.com/pro...oating-daytona
https://www.phillips.com/detail/rolex/CH080217/144
https://robertmaron.com/rolex-dayton...ial-steel.html
https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/...2-details.aspx
https://lunaroyster.com/product/1964...wiss-t-dial-2/
etc.

Ya know, looks like that term is used for both style Daytona dials. Interesting.

I'm thinking that old lunaroyster listing is the same dial configuration as the OP's example. Super cool version of the early Daytona.

[justthebezel]

And how about some quick impressions of this Daytona on ebay? The seller sells mostly junk, so this does not fit with his inventory. I'm guessing it must have a couple of glaring issues? Dial? Bezel?



https://www.ebay.com/itm/ROLEX-STAIN...0AAOSwRs1eUshf

[justthebezel]

And why not this one at Sothebys right now for good measure? Please educate me.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auct...24_mar-17-2020

[1watch]

Originally Posted by justthebezel

And why not this one at Sothebys right now for good measure? Please educate me.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auct...24_mar-17-2020

Dial has marks, lume plot and edge damage as noted in their description. Case is overpolished. Those factors alone have a substantial impact on the value.

[justthebezel]

Thanks for the guidance so far. I agree with re to ebay. I'd see the watch in hand before buying, but right now, I don't know enough to know how little I know. I thought the Sothebys watch had polishing issues. Does the dial look right on the ebay watch?

[justthebezel]

I've already discarded the ones shown above. Moving on to this one: Thanks again for the quick education and assistance.

[justthebezel]

I'm seeing the dials on the 6239 models vary greatly and seem to bleed over from version to version. I figured there'd by dozens of eager Daytona fans here. Some articles I read show the "Daytona" above center started in late 64 and some say 65. There was big and little font...different spacing. Yikes. Can anyone here say with certainty that the above dial is correct for a 1964, serial 1,0x,xxx?

The term "floating" I am finding usually refers to the DAYTONA above the center, but it's all new to me.

And I'll put this out there: I'm not listing it for sale, but I have a very, very sweet 2998, as pretty as you'll ever see, that I am willing to trade for a nice 6239 or other pre 90s Daytona. If you find yourself old Daytona rich and like the best Speedmasters made, message me.

[Tools]

Rolex did not do things by model year or serial number.

When they ordered dials, these went into inventory along with any others there, and were used as a builder grabbed one from stock.

Almost anything Rolex can be "dated" within a year or two, or within an era, but not to a precise day in time.

[justthebezel]

Originally Posted by Tools

Rolex did not do things by model year or serial number.

When they ordered dials, these went into inventory along with any others there, and were used as a builder grabbed one from stock.

Almost anything Rolex can be "dated" within a year or two, or within an era, but not to a precise day in time.

If only Speedmaster "experts" could grasp this very simple concept of parts spilling over from iteration to iteration as batches were used up and bins emptied. Once a couple of pseudo experts published a book after viewing a handful of samples and having access to a tiny bit of the tinier bit of Omega records available, everything in the book has become Speedmaster law. I may get to liking it over here in Rolex world. In the Omega forum about a third of all threads seem to be overt or covert attacks on Rolex owners. Another third is discussion of the weather, etc, and the last third is devoted to Omega watch discussion. Nearly once a day some tool will start a thread aimed at belittling Rolex owners, often outright insulting the owners of the watches when not blathering on about how Rolex is only whipping Omega because of marketing and owners who are too vain and brainless to know better. It's kinda sad.

[justthebezel]

I was never concerned with consensus, so that's good. I was merely pointing out that there is NOT consensus. What term collectors attach to a given characteristic is of no value unless it creates confusion and missteps.