5513 bezel insert worth upgrading?

[zabazja]

Hi all! Wish you a wonderful Christmas.

I’m puzzling a bit. I have a meters first Submariner with a Mk3 Ghost bezel, that’s what I think it is. I have been offered a Long 5 bezel, which is supposed to be period correct (1967). I like the watch esthetically, however, it’s bothering me that it’s considered an incorrect bezel. The bezel I have been offered is a nice Black one at a price of 2700. A lot of money for an old piece of aluminium. But when I try to find other deals, most are offered at a higher price.

Do you think it’s worth adding another bezel insert, or should I relax and accept the watch as it is?

[Dan S]

Sure looks like ZnS lume, but let's be sure about the vintage of your watch first. Can you post the first few digits of the serial. And let us know if you've seen the date code inside the back.

Is the fade on your current insert natural, or did you do some sort of treatment? That could affect the resale value.

[zabazja]

Thank you for you reply Dan. I have no concerns about the legitimacy of the watch, it’s a 67 meters first with a serial number matching that era.

I’m just not to sure about the bezel insert. Based on my research I think it’s a later mk3 bezel from +/-73 I’m wondering if it’s worth spending the money for a correct period correct bezel insert.

Another thing that I was suprised to find out. I have seen a lot of listings of meters first with similar ghost faded MK3 bezels. Could it be that the existence of this bezel is earlier, or could it be that their bezels have been replaced in the 70’s?

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by zabazja

Thank you for you reply Dan. I have no concerns about the legitimacy of the watch, it’s a 67 meters first with a serial number matching that era.

I’m just not to sure about the bezel insert. Based on my research I think it’s a later mk3 bezel from +/-73 I’m wondering if it’s worth spending the money for a correct period correct bezel insert.

Another thing that I was suprised to find out. I have seen a lot of listings of meters first with similar ghost faded MK3 bezels. Could it be that the existence of this bezel is earlier, or could it be that their bezels have been replaced in the 70’s?

I'm not doubting the legitimacy of your watch. I'm just suggesting that you double-check the serial number with the forum so we can confirm that a long-5 is the correct insert for you. If it's even a bit later than you think, a different insert might be appropriate. You'd be surprised how often this happens, where someone comes onto the forum and gives partial information that later turns out to be wrong. That's why we ask for photos and details. Before jumping into making a replacement, it's a good idea to really make sure your current watch isn't already correct. Very often there is a conventional wisdom posted on the internet, and everyone rushes to "fix" their watch. Then someone does better research a few years later and we learn that the conventional wisdom wasn't quite right.

I assume you've seen this thread:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...r-t266367.html

[zabazja]

Thank you for your reply Dan. What you say makes sense, I’m sorry for misunderstanding. Currently the watch is locked at the bank safe, I won’t be able to get it out in the upcoming days.

Based on the previous serial check I understood the watch comes from ‘67. When looking at the link, I realize different inserts have been attached to watches from the same year. However, I think based on what I see here it’s supposed to be a 5.1 insert.

[zabazja]

Incomplete 4

[swaini3]

if you want to make your watch "period correct" and incase you sell one day, get the right insert. Otherwise, the one you have looks nice.
Based on the serial given a MK5.0 or a mk1 (Long 5) will be correct according to Xeramic's research.
Without spending, you may find someone to swap yours for a MK5.0. (same price).
However, note that most people will refer to a Long 5 being the right insert for a '67.
If you decide to get the Long 5, beware of replicas, there are good fakes around.

[TuRo]

Agree with Mo and all. Nice watch btw.

That one you have fitted would fetch a good bit and close to LONG 5 money. So a p/x a good option. As stated many fake long 5 out there. Check FORENSICALLY against :

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...r-t266367.html

Personally, I don't lust after faded bezels, that's just me, I prefer one with contrasting strong dark colour that might have faded say a dark green/blue/brown etc. My 'tick' is I would seek orig. original smaller winding crown !

[swish77]

it was a later thin-font service replacement with a luminova pearl, I’d replace it, but that’s a great-looking insert already on the watch. I’d leave it. Perhaps Rolex replaced it in the ‘70s during a service, which certainly would not make it “incorrect.”

I’m all for “period correctness,” but sometimes it’s just not worth the money and hassle, especially if what you already have is an authentic Rolex part that is “correct” for a Sub.

[Dom9]

Nice insert and I am no fan of a ghost (albeit this is a nice, strong grey, maybe anthracite, for me) but that looks great! Not sure I could be bothered swapping or spending money to be rid of it!

[tekno]

I wouldn’t accept an insert with any bends in it personally and watch the area just below the pearl for cracks. I would ask whoever is selling it prior if it looks like it’s ever been bent, and get good pics of front and back.

The one in your watch is really nice, I second what everyone is saying and just hold out.

[zabazja]

Thank you all for the advice. For now I think I’ll just leave the bezel in place. If one day, I spot a nice legit one at a decent price, I might add it.

@TuRo , thanks for mentioning the crown. I had not noticed, but it’s something for sure I need to fix. Luckily they seem to be to costly. That together with a OG t19 and I think I’ll be very happy.

[zabazja]

I can get this Long 5, does it look legit?

[Dan S]

You can compare here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...0.html#p629137