Is There A Vintage Explorer Expert in The House?

[trackpad]

Don, I think I've been (or this thread has been) continually misunderstood.

It was never to call into question the originality of your watch, so you have nothing to defend. Sorry if I didn't word the original post better. Same goes for Jacek's offering.

This was also never about price – I never brought it up – and couldn't agree more that it is worth whatever the person who eventually buys it is willing to pay. We're in a free market.

The point or question, which I have tried to return to several times, without great success...is how two watches from the same serial number range and reference come out with different dials.

Now, I should never have used or introduced the word "service dial", I framed this all wrong, that's my fault – also because I know Rolex were playing it fast and loose with things like this, using up old stock, not really thinking along the lines of making clear-cut historical references. Fair enough.

To be clear, the dial on the left – Don, your dial – is what I've seen on 99% of Explorers from this era. And Jacek's, on the right, is made more exotic by the taller coronet and the alignment of the X in ROLEX relative to the word PERPETUAL below. Where the end of X aligns with end of T in most examples, it aligns with the end of U in the one on the right.

Until earlier today, I had never been able to track down another example quite like it. But I saw one today on an Explorer from the late 1960's...which I can't vouch for, but here it is.

http://www.chrono24.es/rolex/explore...-id2789219.htm

And the same dial from the archive here...also 1967.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/53964...ted+by+amdubin

Worth noting that the gilt dials from '66 and before didn't use this layout. And the design seems to have changed shortly after this – maybe even the year after this. and by '71 for sure it was gone.

So how did it end up in a case from '74? From everything I've read and learned since, there is no reason to believe it couldn't have. Perhaps they had a lot of them laying around, and the odd one got used again years and years later. Who knows.

If (big if!) there is anything to be learned from all this, I think it's that when you see a 1016 with the X finishing exactly with the U in PERPETUAL below – you're looking at a 1016 dial design from a fairly narrow window in time – 1967 to possibly 1970...maybe even only '68 or '69. Further research is needed.

Just remember that X over the U means the U stands for "UNUSUAL". :-) Over "T" is more "TYPICAL"...and is I think a hallmark of the design in use from approximately 1970 until they stopped making them in the 1990's.

Now enough intrigue, at least for me. Both dials look great. Now back to Exploring.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by trackpad

Don, I think I've been (or this thread has been) continually misunderstood.

It was never to call into question the originality of your watch, so you have nothing to defend. Sorry if I didn't word the original post better. Same goes for Jacek's offering.

This was also never about price – I never brought it up – and couldn't agree more that it is worth whatever the person who eventually buys it is willing to pay. We're in a free market.

The point or question, which I have tried to return to several times, without great success...is how two watches from the same serial number range and reference come out with different dials.

Now, I should never have used or introduced the word "service dial", I framed this all wrong, that's my fault – also because I know Rolex were playing it fast and loose with things like this, using up old stock, not really thinking along the lines of making clear-cut historical references. Fair enough.

To be clear, the dial on the left – Don, your dial – is what I've seen on 99% of Explorers from this era. And Jacek's, on the right, is made more exotic by the taller coronet and the alignment of the X in ROLEX relative to the word PERPETUAL below. Where the end of X aligns with end of T in most examples, it aligns with the end of U in the one on the right.

Until earlier today, I had never been able to track down another example quite like it. But I saw one today on an Explorer from the late 1960's...which I can't vouch for, but here it is.

http://www.chrono24.es/rolex/explore...-id2789219.htm

And the same dial from the archive here...also 1967.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/53964...ted+by+amdubin

Worth noting that the gilt dials from '66 and before didn't use this layout. And the design seems to have changed shortly after this – maybe even the year after this. and by '71 for sure it was gone.

So how did it end up in a case from '74? From everything I've read and learned since, there is no reason to believe it couldn't have. Perhaps they had a lot of them laying around, and the odd one got used again years and years later. Who knows.

If (big if!) there is anything to be learned from all this, I think it's that when you see a 1016 with the X finishing exactly with the U in PERPETUAL below – you're looking at 1016 dial design from a fairly narrow window in time – 1967 to possibly 1970...maybe even only '68 or '69. Further research is needed.

Just remember that X over the U means the U stands for "UNUSUAL". :-) Over "T" is more "TYPICAL"...and is I think a hallmark of the design in use from approximately 1970 until they stopped making them in the 1990's.

Now enough intrigue, at least for me. Both dials look great. Now back to Exploring.

Trackpad, most of the replies and exchanges were between other members and their posts, not exclusively yours.

[dgdjr]

Hello trackpad -

I take no offense at all to your post/posts. It is continuous learning experience for us all. As for Jaceks dial - may be another variation in or around the same time period. I appreciate your responses above. My posts were more in connection to SPEEDOLEX. I have no arguments with anyone - just wanted to clear up what I could.

Don

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by dgdjr

Hello trackpad -

I take no offense at all to your post/posts. It is continuous learning experience for us all. As for Jaceks dial - may be another variation in or around the same time period. I appreciate your responses above. My posts were more in connection to SPEEDOLEX. I have no arguments with anyone - just wanted to clear up what I could.

Don

Don, trackpad, et. al,

Similarly, if my attempts to assist by playing amateur expert amongst true experts only confused things I apologize, was not my intention.

The original post was up for a full day with over 100 views and no one had responded, I was trying to be helpful.

[Vincent65]

[Frogman4me]

Originally Posted by speedolex

I respect that.

Can you comment on my dial which I was told in this forum was an RSC dial but looks to me identical to the original dial on the full-set example?

Just to clarify the dials are not the same, if you look at the coronet you can see they are different. Also the "p" in explorer is under the "R" and the "C" in certified is under the "H" in Chronometer.

[trackpad]

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

Just to clarify the dials are not the same, if you look at the coronet you can see they are different. Also the "p" in explorer is under the "R" and the "C" in certified is under the "H" in Chronometer.

True. And the coronet is a great place to start.

Then checking the coronet against the other typographic signatures is also a great way to validate the dial or root out fakes. (i.e. Tall coronet corresponds with "X" at the end of "U"...corresponds negatively (should not have) an "H" over the "C" [Holy Cow!] ...etc)

Another obvious thing I only just noticed is that EXPLORER is serifed in the standard version of this dial...and on the older, more unusual dial it is without serifs. Another great data point to check against and together with all the other signatures.

These are possibly the only two 1016 Explorer matte dial layouts ...covering 1967 until it was retired? Not sure.

[trackpad]

Originally Posted by dgdjr

Hello trackpad -

I take no offense at all to your post/posts. It is continuous learning experience for us all. As for Jaceks dial - may be another variation in or around the same time period. I appreciate your responses above. My posts were more in connection to SPEEDOLEX. I have no arguments with anyone - just wanted to clear up what I could.

Don

Much appreciated and GLWS!

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by dgdjr

Speedolex -

Your dial does not match my dial nor the link I have included - so I can not speak for your dial. This is another of Jaceks sold 1016s from 1974. A match to my dial. You may start with comparing the coronets.

http://www.hqmilton.com/watches/1974...plorer-1-10161

Don Duffee
dgdjr

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

Just to clarify the dials are not the same, if you look at the coronet you can see they are different. Also the "p" in explorer is under the "R" and the "C" in certified is under the "H" in Chronometer.

I now have the world's most painful neck ache from staring at my watch and the screen looking through the archive for matches to my dial. The word 'Explorer' sits in so many locations and widths on the different examples, very interesting.

EDIT: Just found this one in the VRF dial archive [1016--"E" SN, ca. 1991--posted by Derek/ilovecomex] which is a spot-on match and original to a 1991 (didn't know they made them that late) 1016 with box and papers, so my 1997 service document would lead me to believe I have a very late model service dial which is what I wanted. Thanks again for the assistance.

[trackpad]

Originally Posted by speedolex

The word 'Explorer' sits in so many locations and widths on the different examples, very interesting.

Also in the matte dial variants?

I'm trying to get my head around the matte dial layouts...as understanding the gilt dial period feels like another (more painful) project.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by trackpad

Also in the matte dial variants?

I'm trying to get my head around the matte dial layouts...as understanding the gilt dial period feels like another (more painful) project.

Can't speak to the gilt dials as I did not seek them out, but when I visited the VRF dial archive at the link Don provided and clicked on dial after dial looking at the tiny details like letter spacing and word location I was amazed at the variations, some of which I never noticed before.

That said, I don't think there is anything cross-referencing each dial variation to a specific time period, and since many of the ones shown are on their third or fourth owner it's not possible to know which are original to the watch and which are service dials.