52/53 Oysterdate Precision

[Go675]

I hadn't intended on buying a watch last Saturday (let alone a Rolex) but it was a case of right place, right time. In the space of 3 hours I'd went from seeing it in the shop window to owning it.

The place I bought it didn't have access to the interior (they did say it had been authenticated.........), so I bought it with the assurance that if anything was wrong then I could get a refund. Of course I'd hoped that it was correct and to my absolutely untrained eye it appears to be (with thanks to a watch repair shop yesterday who kindly popped the case and let me grab a couple of photos).

It since transpires that the watch passed through Bonhams in September 2024 (their pictures of the front of the watch are far better than any I can take). They didn't have any pictures of the watch movement/case back so it was pleasing to see the movement number and "IV52" marking on the case back from their description match when it was opened yesterday. I've read through a few posts on here and I understand that it's not possible to say with 100% certainty whether it would have been made in 1952 or 1953 (IV52 suggests 1952, 881XXX serial suggests either 1952 or 1953), hence the inclusion of both in the thread title.

I'm delighted with the purchase for a number of reasons. First and foremost I think it's a great looking watch. The smaller case size suits my wrist and the price paid is in a range that I'm comfortable with (I doubt I could sleep with both the spend and then the wearing of anything modern from Rolex).

The watch is running circa 30s slow daily and I don't plan on wearing it every day. I had considered having it serviced, but given it's age and so far it appears to be working well enough, I don't know if it's worthwhile? More than happy to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

[Dan S]

I'd love to see a photo of the dial if you want to post that. I'm only seeing the movement and inside of the case-back.

[Go675]

Sure, now added.

[Dan S]

Was that dial sold as original?

[Go675]

It didn't specify that the dial was original to the watch.

I read a comment on one thread that the T-Swiss-T marking on dials was more likely to be early 60s.

It also appears to be the dial that was on the watch when it went through Bonhams (I assume the hands/dial look a slightly different colour due to their photographing setup being far better than the one I took with my phone).

[Dan S]

The dial appears to be repainted, and the hands and dial re-lumed. Not very sympathetically, TBH. 6094 is a no-date reference, and the date-wheel also looks a bit wonky.

Unless there is something about the photo that is causing the photo to look totally different than the watch in person.

[Go675]

Appreciate the feedback Dan. It might be something for me to consider a bit further down the line.

The vast majority of 6094 photographs that I've seen online do contain a date (fully appreciate that doesn't mean they should!).

[TimeToGo]

.
As Dan mentioned, Dial is redone.
The 1952 year of production, as indicated on the cashback, is appropriate.  Serial number prior to the Rolex renumbering system.

[Dan S]

You're right about the ref 6094 being a date reference, I fumble-fingered a search. Just as an FYI, the repainted dial reduces the value of the watch dramatically.

[Dan S]

You should also take a close look at the date window because I suspect there might be a missing surround. To be totally candid, I would seriously consider returning the watch.

[TuRo]

Tbh I’m not at all keen on ANY of that watches full correctness :( I’d swing it back O.P.

[Go675]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I've returned the watch for a refund (as agreed at the point of purchase).