ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

bubbaK · 31 July 2014, 04:34 AM

Hey guys... Just wanted y'alls opinion on certain details regarding this 5513 supposedly dating to 1983.

a) How does that bezel insert look to you?

b) Hands?

c) Dial, I feel like it's a little odd that there seems to be no patina on markers

d) Is bracelet period correct?

Karbo · 31 July 2014, 04:40 AM

Luminova pearl but looks great

Karbo · 31 July 2014, 04:40 AM

Luminova pearl but looks great

swish77 · 31 July 2014, 06:16 AM

Hard to tell for sure from the photos, but are the lugs even? They've been polished, which can be OK, but is the lower right lug even with the other lugs? Looks as if it's got a little more polish than the others, but it could just be the lighting. Regarding the patina, I have a Submariner 5512 from 1973 that has virtually no patina (see below). That is quite possible, especially if it's been worn a lot in the sun. Good luck either way.

shane0mack · 31 July 2014, 06:34 AM

If it was a daily wearer, there's a chance the markers could be lightened by the sun. Also, not all markers were created equal and had different chemical mixtures, which allows for different degrees of patina. This looks like a mk V Maxi, which I think should match up with 1983.

Do the hands and pearl glow after being exposed to light? If so, they're probably replacement luminovas. The insert looks to be a replacement based on the font.

Overall, I think it's a nice example.

Frosty · 31 July 2014, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swish77

Regarding the patina, I have a Submariner 5512 from 1973 that has virtually no patina (see below). That is quite possible, especially if it's been worn a lot in the sun. Good luck either way.

I agree

Here is my '81

Beaumont Miller II · 31 July 2014, 11:57 AM

That is a great looking maxi 5 which would be correct for around 1983. Without the code on the bracelet, you won't know if it is correct for 1983. Case looks very nice.

Aaron beautiful example.

dstacy · 31 July 2014, 12:05 PM

'67 and still quite light in color

.

Beaumont Miller II · 31 July 2014, 12:22 PM

Since this is turning into a 5512 thread, mine says hi.

However it does have patina.
To the OP I would not worry about the chalk white plots. I think it is a great look. In addition, the hands are a perfect match in all the pictures in different lighting. That is a big plus.

Neunundneunzig · 31 July 2014, 12:35 PM

Not an expert, but it looks okay. I like the look of the 5513. I wish you luck!

31 July 2014, 04:34 AM	#1
bubbaK "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Real Name: Neven Location: Twin Peaks, WA Watch: Serpico Y Laino Posts: 127	5513 Thoughts Hey guys... Just wanted y'alls opinion on certain details regarding this 5513 supposedly dating to 1983. a) How does that bezel insert look to you? b) Hands? c) Dial, I feel like it's a little odd that there seems to be no patina on markers d) Is bracelet period correct?

31 July 2014, 04:40 AM	#2
Karbo "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Paris, France Watch: Dayto/5164 Posts: 1,631	Luminova pearl but looks great __________________ IG : @aka_karbo

31 July 2014, 04:40 AM	#3
Karbo "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Paris, France Watch: Dayto/5164 Posts: 1,631	Luminova pearl but looks great __________________ IG : @aka_karbo

31 July 2014, 06:16 AM	#4
swish77 2025 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Aaron Location: CT/NYC Watch: ing the time! Posts: 7,075	Hard to tell for sure from the photos, but are the lugs even? They've been polished, which can be OK, but is the lower right lug even with the other lugs? Looks as if it's got a little more polish than the others, but it could just be the lighting. Regarding the patina, I have a Submariner 5512 from 1973 that has virtually no patina (see below). That is quite possible, especially if it's been worn a lot in the sun. Good luck either way. Attached Images

31 July 2014, 06:34 AM	#5
shane0mack "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Boston, MA Watch: 16800 (1981) Posts: 315	If it was a daily wearer, there's a chance the markers could be lightened by the sun. Also, not all markers were created equal and had different chemical mixtures, which allows for different degrees of patina. This looks like a mk V Maxi, which I think should match up with 1983. Do the hands and pearl glow after being exposed to light? If so, they're probably replacement luminovas. The insert looks to be a replacement based on the font. Overall, I think it's a nice example. __________________ Wound For Life Reviews and stories about built-to-last timepieces woundforlife.com

31 July 2014, 11:57 AM	#7
Beaumont Miller II "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,615	That is a great looking maxi 5 which would be correct for around 1983. Without the code on the bracelet, you won't know if it is correct for 1983. Case looks very nice. Aaron beautiful example. __________________

31 July 2014, 12:05 PM	#8
dstacy Banned Join Date: Oct 2013 Real Name: Who cares? Location: Texas Watch: A few Posts: 451	'67 and still quite light in color . Attached Images

31 July 2014, 12:22 PM	#9
Beaumont Miller II "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,615	Since this is turning into a 5512 thread, mine says hi. However it does have patina. To the OP I would not worry about the chalk white plots. I think it is a great look. In addition, the hands are a perfect match in all the pictures in different lighting. That is a big plus. __________________

31 July 2014, 12:35 PM	#10
Neunundneunzig Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Ohio Posts: 159	Not an expert, but it looks okay. I like the look of the 5513. I wish you luck!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)