1960? Gilt 1016 explorer

[edtheaussie]

Hi everyone,

I have been offered the opportunity to buy this 1016 explorer, and while I was not actively looking for a gilt explorer, it provides an opportunity to pick up an awesome piece. I have a tudor ranger, and love the 3,6,9 dial so could be interested in picking it up if I'm able to gather some funds. The watch was sold second hand in 1995 (hence the sales receipt)

Gilt 1016

These are the photos so far, but don't have a clear one of the dial (waiting for a better one).

It looks to be a swiss only dial, which would be correct for the proposed date of 1/60. I probably won't get a look the internals until I have it in my hands. It also has the 'frog foot' coronet (i think) which i have seen on other examples. Again would like to know if this is correct?

The endlinks are marked as 580, but i'm not sure if they look correct? they looked to be stamped very high up the endlink, and the shape just doesn't look right.

I presume that the bracelet is a 78360 (solid links + non locking clasp), but again the photos are lacking detail. Where these produced in 1976 (as indicated by the a marked clasp?), but i also note that the 78360 isn't stamped on the clasp (is this ok?)

Anyway, I will add clearer photos when received but was just wondering for the experts advice :) Thanks!

[edtheaussie]

Better photo of the dial

[Rolexator]

Hey there,

no frog-foot on the dial.

The hands have been relumed and in a bad way so I would stay away from this.

Have a nice day!

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Rolexator

Hey there,

no frog-foot on the dial.

The hands have been relumed and in a bad way so I would stay away from this.

Have a nice day!

It wouldn't/shouldn't have a frog foot coronet. Those came later, and on matte dials.

[alwayshere]

Ed, I dunno if its the photo but the dial looks repainted? the text seems sloppy vs. what I have seen in the past.

[edtheaussie]

Yea I did stay away, there was what looked like some degradation of the gloss around the edges.

[Rolexator]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

It wouldn't/shouldn't have a frog foot coronet. Those came later, and on matte dials.

I think you misunderstood my sentence. I wasn't saying that the dial should have a frog-foot coronet. I was just letting Ed know that it is not a frog-foot coronet on the dial, because he thought it was.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Rolexator

I think you misunderstood my sentence. I wasn't saying that the dial should have a frog-foot coronet. I was just letting Ed know that it is not a frog-foot coronet on the dial, because he thought it was.

My fault, man!

[Rolexator]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

My fault, man!

All good!