DateJust?

[HogwldFLTR]

There are a bunch of people around with much much more experience than I have here; can some of you comment on the image below. I have it being shipped to me (the watch, not the image). I'm particularly curious about the stem's offset from the case. The watch is returnable.



Thanks,

Lee

[Reu]

... the crown hasn't been wound back in.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Reu

... the crown hasn't been wound back in.

I considered that. Hopefully that is all there is. The reason I ask is because some of the early photos I've seen of the DJ have the crown offset. Was that the case with those as well? Thanks for the help and the quick response.

[joe100]

Do you have a close up of the dial? That text looks suspect, but it may just be the angle

[MonBK]

It's probably hacked for the picture.

Jocke does that all the time.

[RolexPete]

The Rolex on the dial does look wrong. Can you post a close up of the dial?

[HogwldFLTR]

Not yet, as soon as I get it. It will be verified when it comes in this week. I think that the picture isn't particularly good. Thanks for the inputs.

[HogwldFLTR]

Well this promises to be my first Rolex and was received today. This is what one gets for their money. I have little knowledge of the Rolex market but I take this watch to be in the Vintage niche. I haven't had it opened or removed the bracelet yet but taking things at face value, the watch appears to be a 1956 DateJust. Can anyone suggest the model number since I'm at work and don't have the necessary tool to remove the bracelet. Here are some photos of what I got. It is running and I'm anxious to see how it keeps time prior to being sent off for servicing. Any recommendations on servicing value would be appreciated. For what it's worth, the flash certainly show defects that don't appear readily without it.

Thanks,

Lee

[MitchSteel]

Hard to tell of the overall package, but it looks alright.........the hands are definitely wrong for this reference, they should be dauphine hands, the dial looks to be relumed/refinished.If the innards are correct, I think this piece has desent potential.Welcome BTW

[HogwldFLTR]

Thanks for the reply; I did remove the band and didn't find serial number or model number on the case although there is a faint inscription on the back of the case. F274948 I have no idea what that would be; it looks to be hand scribed and more like indentation that scribed.

[DJJon]

It's a vintage Datejust for sure. It's history is not fully known, but if you have the original paperwork that is all you need to know it's birthright.

New hands, replacement crown, etc. are to be expected. The jubillee bracelet is very old but who knows if it goes back to 1956 too or maybe it is a replacement from the 70's.

Your acrylic crystal looks right but scratched. Try some "Polywatch" from eBay and spend time rubbing it out. I also have success using CD Repair polishing fluid.

Welcome to The Rolex Forum !
All in all

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by DJJon

It's a vintage Datejust for sure. It's history is not fully known, but if you have the original paperwork that is all you need to know it's birthright.

New hands, replacement crown, etc. are to be expected. The jubillee bracelet is very old but who knows if it goes back to 1956 too or maybe it is a replacement from the 70's.

Your acrylic crystal looks right but scratched. Try some "Polywatch" from eBay and spend time rubbing it out. I also have success using CD Repair polishing fluid.

Welcome to The Rolex Forum !
All in all

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'll be taking it to a fellow I know who is a jewler and watch collector to take a look at as well. I'm confident it is what appears to be although next time I take photos it won't be with the flash which really makes the watch look far worse than it really is.

[MonBK]

No model or serial # is not a good sign.

[joe100]

Originally Posted by MonBK

No model or serial # is not a good sign.

Vintage DJs aren't my thing but I was thinking that too... I'm trying to politely say that you need to get this watch authenticated.

[Cc1966]

Originally Posted by joe100

Vintage DJs aren't my thing but I was thinking that too... I'm trying to politely say that you need to get this watch authenticated.

x3 unfortunately...

[Tools]

I see an old watch made up from a number of different, mis-matched, parts.

I also see the old Chronometer certificate prominent in most photos; however, I don't see anything that would make me think it goes with that watch..

I think that I would want to do some more research on this item..

[77T]

So many issues that I would send it back for a refund and look for a complete Rolex that is completely original. Even if you pay more now, it will keep its value better than this one.

[vintagewaferthin]

Sadly that dial has been refinished and on top of that the original Lume has been stripped off and replaced as well.

[crowncollection]

Lots of mismatched parts but it does look authentic overall. If the lugs are completely blank the model and serial maybe rubbed right off, not good, near impossible to resell. Send it back if you can, it's not worth sorting all the issues out to still find it's very, very hard to sell if you should choose to one day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[HogwldFLTR]

Thank you all for your inputs; I am endeavoring to send the watch back especially since it has stopped running.

[Cc1966]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Thank you all for your inputs; I am endeavoring to send the watch back especially since it has stopped running.

Wow, this went South fast!

[springer]

The bracelet should be 14k/SS on two tone models. Looks like it was replaced with a solid stainless steel version.

[vintagewaferthin]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Thank you all for your inputs; I am endeavoring to send the watch back especially since it has stopped running.

Wow man! you really need to just cut your losses and send the damn thing back. If a nice vintage DJ is what your after, this watch certianly isnt it.

[jolimont]

Best of luck with the return and check here before you buy next time,

[HogwldFLTR]

Well, it's been some time since I posted this debacle. When the watch failed after owning it a very brief time, I contacted the seller who refused to accept a return and insisted that I get a quote on a repair. I'd talked with the local Rolex dealer who wanted to send it back to Switzerland for verification since it had no visible model or serial number (they'd been ground off). I posted a request with ebay to get a refund and they gave me five days to get an estimate for repair. I declined and instead went through AMEX to get a refund. It took me two separate filings with AMEX to get it resolved but this week I finally received notice that the funds had been returned. Always make sure that you use a major credit card if you have the slightest doubt about the purchase. This seller first refused the return and then used the lack of return to justify not making a refund. Luckily I had the email showing that they refused the return and that was sufficient to give AMEX the evidence they needed to make things happen. I ate the cost of the shipping but that was minimal in comparison to the cost of the watch.