Do all these codes seem appropriate for a 5513 Sub?

[mat-with-one-t]

Hi all. This is my first post, so be gentle! I'm a long-suffering vintage Seiko fan, but have always kept eyes open for the right Sub!! It turns out, a 1970 5513 has caught my eye. My primary criteria is originality, followed by condition and provenance. The one I'm looking at looks pretty good, and has paperwork showing service work by a reputable dealer.
In my research, most things are looking right, but one small detail has be a bit puzzled regarding the bracelet.

SHOULD END LINKS ONLY BE 580?

Bracelet is 93150
End links are 585
Clasp is 176

I note that it was the Sea Dweller 1665 that was normally supplied with 585 end links, and the Sub should perhaps be 580 only.

Is it still possible that the end links are still original to the bracelet, which is original to the watch?

Down the rabbit hole I go!

All the best,
Mat

[Dan S]

A 1970 5513 (assuming that's actually the year, it's better to post the serial number so the year can be checked) would not have come with a 93150, which did not exist in 1970. A clasp code of "176" makes no sense. You should probably post photos.

[offrdmania]

Originally Posted by Dan S

A 1970 5513 (assuming that's actually the year, it's better to post the serial number so the year can be checked) would not have come with a 93150, which did not exist in 1970. A clasp code of "176" makes no sense. You should probably post photos.

I dont think its a clasp code, I think it is referring to the year stamp which is the 1st quarter of 1976. A much later replacement bracelet.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by offrdmania

I dont think its a clasp code, I think it is referring to the year stamp which is the 1st quarter of 1976. A much later replacement bracelet.

Wouldn't 1976 be too late for that type of date code? It would be a letter code by 1976, IIRC.

[offrdmania]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Wouldn't 1976 be too late for that type of date code? It would be a letter code by 1976, IIRC.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=465189

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by offrdmania

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=465189

Interesting, I would have expected an "A" date code. Learned something today!

[springer]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Interesting, I would have expected an "A" date code. Learned something today!

Hello Dan, you are correct about clasps having an alpha date code beginning with "A" indicating 1976, but, you will also find numbered clasp date codes during the late 1970s - such as 1 76. So, you and offrdmania are both correct.

As indicated, the 93150 Oyster bracelet is not considered original for a 1970 SUBMARINER and neither are the 585 end links which were found on a SEA-DWELLER. For me, someone replaced the bracelet during some point of ownership.

The watch should have a 9315 Oyster flip-lock bracelet - probably with a 1970 or 1971 clasp code based on a 1970 date of production.

[mat-with-one-t]

Originally Posted by Dan S

A 1970 5513 (assuming that's actually the year, it's better to post the serial number so the year can be checked) would not have come with a 93150, which did not exist in 1970. A clasp code of "176" makes no sense. You should probably post photos.

Are you sure about the 93150? I thought I found references to this bracelet being issued with the 5513, but I could be mistaken....

[Tools]

Originally Posted by mat-with-one-t

Are you sure about the 93150? I thought I found references to this bracelet being issued with the 5513, but I could be mistaken....

The 93150 was introduced in about '75/76, and so would have been found on Subs of that age or newer. It is possible that the clasp date code I 76 is original to the bracelet, but not the watch.

If your watch is a 1970 then it could not have been "originally" issued with a 93150, although this is a correct service replacement.

Do not confuse originality with authenticity or correct for the era, these are separate categories.

It is very difficult to actually find a true original 50+ year old example, especially one that has been recently serviced. It is very likely that this one is simply accessorized and cleaned up for a sale. Nothing wrong with that, but know what you are buying if it is important to you.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Tools

The 93150 was introduced in about '95/96, and so would have been found on Subs of that age or newer. It is possible that the clasp date code I 76 is original to the bracelet, but not the watch.

If your watch is a 1970 then it could not have been "originally" issued with a 93150, although this is a correct service replacement.

Do not confuse originality with authenticity or correct for the era, these are separate categories.

It is very difficult to actually find a true original 50+ year old example, especially one that has been recently serviced. It is very likely that this one is simply accessorized and cleaned up for a sale. Nothing wrong with that, but know what you are buying if it is important to you.

I think Larry meant to type '75/76. And yes, too late for a 1970 watch (assuming that's when the watch was manufactured), and the wrong end-links. However, all things considered, if the watch itself is good and priced right, the bracelet shouldn't be a dealbreaker IMO.

[Kingface66]

“ The 93150 was introduced in about '95/96”

Larry, I think you mean ‘75/‘76

[Tools]

Yes, typo guys.... wouldn't make any sense the way my old fingers said it.

[TuRo]

Only thing to add to above is that 585 fetch good money, so you could buy two sets of 580s if you swapped them. Of course 93150 and 585 not orig. as everyone pointed out. 585 fit sub fine they are only microscopically wider opening - and in fact they fit 5513/1680 better than 580 (380 int') in many instances !

I remembered I also have a orig. owner 69/70 5513, that originally came on an old stock 7206 Rivet (documented on warranty) from the A.D. (an original buyer preference, cos he couldn't get his fingernail on first finger under the VERY tricky to flick open - i.e. non indented - 9315 version).

[mat-with-one-t]

Hi all and so many thanks for all of the fantastic replies! I always love the detective work - that is what makes collecting so interesting!

I somehow lost my last post, so here we go again! This is all with a view to purchasing a long-hunted watch - a 1970 Sub.

So it looks like we have a circa 1976 93150/585 (possibly from a Sea Dweller) with a 176 clasp, that is too late to be original to this watch (which should have a 9315/580. I'll add some pics when I figure out how to!

Whilst I try to keep things all original, I figure this is not a dealbreaker, as it seems to be a well chosen quality authentic replacement, and I plan to WEAR the watch if I purchase it!

As for the watch, please confirm if I have it right so far! It was overhauled in approx 2018 by a reputable dealer.

Submariner 5513
Serial #2898*** (is this early 1970?)
Matte feet-first non serif dial

[mat-with-one-t]

.

[mat-with-one-t]

?

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by mat-with-one-t

?

Apparently you are still looking for help?

Serial number lists are in the reference library:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=54362
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=350245

Dial is non-serif.
http://5513mattedial.com

Did you have any specific questions? The case looks mediocre at first glance, but the photo doesn't really allow us to judge.

[alwayshere]

need better pics, OP.

The clasp code - looks like I 76? is that what you're trying to say? let the other experts chime in if thats correct for the era.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

need better pics, OP.

The clasp code - looks like I 76? is that what you're trying to say? let the other experts chime in if thats correct for the era.

I think the clasp date-code has already been addressed comprehensively, but the OP still seems to have questions, judging by his recent cryptic post, "?"

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by Dan S

I think the clasp date-code has already been addressed comprehensively, but the OP still seems to have questions, judging by his recent cryptic post, "?"

I did a TLDR haha