How valuable is this vintage Rolex?

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

OK, we know its a model 3131, that was made in both the 30s and the 40s

However on studying the movement we can see its NOT a model 1 or 2 or 3.

The model 5 was the first model to be chronometer AND movement was now serial numbered, that started circa 1942

The model 4 circa 1938 looks exactly like OPs but is not serialized numbered.

Therefore, in my opinion, this watch is between 1938-1942

It surely is not 1933 - 1936/7 - as neither those movement models fits.

For certain its an outstanding piece

Adam
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Best of Times - Dowling & Hess

I would say you will find some 3131's up into the 50's as well.

No offense intended as James is a friend of mine, but the book in question was written 2 decades ago...much of the information was based on data that was drawn and compiled from anecdotal sources and sometimes could be termed speculative and subjective in my opinion. I think as Rolex collecting has drawn more into its ranks and more information has been unearthed I don't feel like you can base some hard cold decisions on information you might find there. I think James would agree that we know more now. It's a fantastic book and it has a plethora of invaluable information and illustration, but I wouldn't etch any of that in stone with regard to release dates of series of movements etc. The truth is Rolex doesn't waste anything. They didn't one day decide that all movements of a prior nature were to be tossed and not ever used...these are what is known in manufacturing as RUNNING changes...they don't have specific date like that. They very often found another vehicle for a movement that was not the top gear for the time. You will note that the movement doesn't say Chronometer anywhere on it....only the dial does. So we really don't know...and Rolex is not going to tell you anything exactly, even if you send it. They would give you likely a rough time frame.

As I mentioned earlier...I have simultaneously owned 2 watches...one with case having a higher serial number dating a good year before another one based on timing certificates for both watches. The watches were 50 THOUSAND watches apart by case serial number...the 550,xxx cert was dated May 1947. The 505,xxx serial numbered watch was dated November 1948?????

Here is a cert for a watch I owned....this will throw you...



Serial: 68705 on the case.

Date: December 2 1938

So the watch in question is 24000 watches before that one. We're making less than 20,000 oysters a year at this point.

Like I said...cases were likely made in batches. Different movements were certified and made at different times...lots of things could have ended up anywhere...over a 1-4 year period depending on the demand. 18k watches were not a real common item for sale during the depression...I mean they did sell them but it wasn't priority for most folks...food was a bigger issue.

While I think it would be wonderful to be able to pin point dates on the 30's and 40's watches...especially in the 1940's with the war and how that effected sales worldwide, you just aren't going to be able to do that.

I think IF we can get a hallmark from the case and someone who knows how to read them for dating...having worked on as I said hundreds of these watches...of course I don't have it in hand, but I would say that it is virtually untouched. This could give a nice indicator of what year certain things are found in what. I would as I also said, like to see the base movement to see which balance it has and also what upper escape cap jewel setting it has and what crown wheel screws it has. What the color of the endstones are on the balance and escape wheel. As for the number on the rotor...that is the ROTOR serial number...NOT the movement serial number. The movement serial number is on the FRONT of the movement next to the 9 3/4H NA designation and is comprised of 4 digits.

[Old Expat Beast]

Brilliant post.

[hambik]

As I see it would be better if I post a photo of the movement without the rotor. How delicate is that procedure? Can I entrust that job to a watchmaker who was certified by Corum or it demands some special skills...?

[GLADIATOR]

Well I have no intention to argue the merits or errors of Dowling/Hess book, and yes there are some errors, but I never saw or heard any claims about the early self-winding movements.

Based on the OP watch not being a model 1 or 2 or 3 movement, and the fact Super Balance was not patented till 1935, I personally could not date the OPs watch prior to 1938.

Thats is my opinion based on all the facts I have seen (and own)

Regards
adam

[R.W.T.]

My feeling is that the first movements 1 2 and 3 vary only slightly...they are 8 3/4 ligne adaptations. As things progressed the automatic connecting/coupling apparatus changed, as did the mainspring and barrel. This is where I find a lot of James and Jeff's information invaluable. The instructions became less specific. It's a fairly miserable movement on all counts but it was decent enough to get the concept rolling. NONE are chronometers, although they are 6 position adjusted base movements. The whole watch GREATLY improved with the advent of the NA 620/630 9 3/4 ligne "new automatic". The OP's movement is a 9 3/4 NA movement. That is not a question. That IS what it is. The question would be...when that movement was introduced and when the other one was completely discontinued and what kind of over lap there is. The 3131 NEVER came with an 8 3/4 movement. The truth is the "bubble backs" that utilize the 8 3/4 movements with the watchmaker's instructions HAVE no reference number. There is no model number on the case or in any parts catalogue that I am aware of. My oldest parts sheet is 1952, it is unbound and stapled together originally and done on some sort of early b and w mimeograph type of machine.



The auto weights ... how many varieties???

The flat style that this example shows is early.

Here is my 55xxx serial ref. 3372 in 18k. Same rotor but with chronometer.







Here's another with slightly different engravings but the same placement.



Here is I believe a 3rd series 8 3/4 ligne.



Here's the last series NOS never mounted service auto complete. No numbers at all, with cut out in rotor frame for base movement serial now on backside.



Here is the common 40's rotor weight. Serial on the weight.



Here's a 40's "Perpetual" weight with CHRONOMETER Removed before plating for a non chronometer watch. No serial.



Here's a 40's auto rotor chronometer...no serial.



There are certainly more varieties...but we are talking...15 years...how many versions...??????????? That's not very long. What came when...were there over laps? Were they just changing engravings to change them stylistically....when the part has the same shape and chamfers...but things just move around...who knows?

Is there going to be anything that I will believe 100% conclusive as far as a timeline of movements unless it comes from Rolex....no. Is Rolex going to provide that? No. :-)

It's fun to play detective...this is only one facet...wait til you try and work on 'em. The modern guys have it easy. A 15xx series pallet is a 15xx series pallet. There are almost infinite combinations of pallets and roller tables and balance staffs....you can't just find one of these parts by name and number and drop it in the watch. It MIGHT work..but it might NOT.

[GLADIATOR]

Lots of great photos - thanks. No model 1 or 2 movement?

Model 1 is a BIG difference to model 3 and quite a big difference between model 2 - these are facts

Do you own a Didactic? I do
Do you own a model 3? I do
Do you own a model 5? I do

I base my opinion, on both what I own, and what I learned from my mentors.

In my opinion, the OPs watch is NEVER 1935!

Now, if we could see some assay mark - that would help - a lot!

This is my last post here - I have given my opinion based on what I know - you of course are entitled to yours

Regards - really
adam H



Thank You
A

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by R.W.T.

Wow, is that stunning.

[R.W.T.]

Well yes Adam as a matter of fact...

I did own the "didactic" shown in my photos that I said was a series 3 which actually looking in James' book appears to be what he calls...and I reiterate HE CALLS... a version 2 although once again we are missing things in-between because it doesn't say Super Balance but it has the same watchmaker instructions apparently.

It DID however HAVE a super balance and it was the later split arm style...but balances get changed. The serial number btw on that watch was...52716 Showing that BOTH movements were being used concurrently if you go by a sequential case serial number dating scenario and that the timeline on movements does NOT necessarily indicate really...anything about production dates of watches.





What you don't seem to understand is the technical differences. You see some appearance differences. The 2 series uses a coupling stack very similar to the NA, at least mine did. I know because I serviced and restored it myself. It has a slipping bridle mainspring and and barrel...unlike the first series which is shown disassembled on the subsequent pages in James' book with slipping springs in the autowind and a traditional hook style mainspring and barrel set up. The watch would fully wind and then the "stack" was made to clutch. The slipping bridle was an improved concept and thus the stack was made to be a set of fixed ratcheting gears.

Where did the term "didactic" come from?

Never heard that used in 32 years, though it does fit nicely.

I own or have owned every watch in those photos and about 50 to 60 others of similar design. I've serviced probably 50 more.

The 3 versions of "didactic" 1 2 and 3 are not terribly dissimilar...they are ALL 8 3/4 ligne based movements. In FACT the actual watch works sans autowind EXCEPT the barrel and mainspring are identical.

They have NOTHING to do with the 9 3/4 ligne that we are talking about that series is the NA. THAT is what is in the 3131. It as I sated NEVER had a didactic movement. If it did the parts catalogues who state that it did. It merely says 9 3/4 auto. The didactic as I said is 8 3/4 auto.


There is also the later 8 3/4 ligne known as the AR. It is built more like a 9 3/4 NA but uses many internal components that are basically the same as the "didactic" 8 3/4 ligne.

The PA or 420 is the ladies version. It is based on the 7 3/4 ligne. It is ONLY sub seconds.

As far as 1 2 3 4 and 5 listed in James' book. Between 3 and 4 he left out about 5 different versions and between 4 and 5 another 3 or 4 at the VERY least if we are going on appearances.

I'm don't need to argue with you about it. It doesn't really matter. We are talking sometime within 2 years here and obviously none of the points I was trying make regarding case production, metals used....and movement production and use of those in different watches all within a few years of each other possibly overlapping with documented examples by Official Chronometer Certification Paper... has made any impression on you.

I'm just compiling my own documentation and systematic deductions here.

It may not be 1935. You may be perfectly accurate there. And by my own example EVEN though I have shown a timing certificate of a watch from dec. 38 to have a serial number in 68k range and the OP's watch is certainly earlier than that...we don't know...because case numbers don't always follow rules of time either.

[dysondiver]

the knowledge that resides in this forum never fails to astound me , very interesting posts.

[GLADIATOR]

Originally Posted by R.W.T.

Where did the term "didactic" come from?

Never heard that used in 32 years, though it does fit nicely.

http://catalog.antiquorum.com/catalo...&auctionid=108
(sold $33,000)

http://catalog.antiquorum.com/catalo...&auctionid=272

Regards
adam

[R.W.T.]

So...no real reason to throw any gas on the fire...but did you notice the serial number on the second watch?

48191

Ca. 1935.

Is what the report says.

The OP's watch serial number is:

44985

Interesting to question why the 1st watch sold for that much money in 2006.
Probably a combo of things, much of which is that it is in Patrizzi's book. It is a considerably earlier example...we can't see the movement and condition...likely series 1.

The second watch. 7 years later though agreed is not as nice of a dial...is 15 times less money. 2006 bubble backs were already way depressed.

Truly...33,000. chf is insane money for that watch in any year.

[GLADIATOR]

Well I was only answering your question:

Where did the term "didactic" come from?

Never heard that used in 32 years,

Fact is only the model 1 as shown in Dowling/Hess book can be termed "Didactic" - it has nothing to do with Ligne/size at all.
Model 2 nor any other that followed are termed didactic.

I may post the article I wrote on mine.

Regards
Adam H

[mistermann]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

Lots of great photos - thanks. No model 1 or 2 movement?

Model 1 is a BIG difference to model 3 and quite a big difference between model 2 - these are facts

Do you own a Didactic? I do
Do you own a model 3? I do
Do you own a model 5? I do

I base my opinion, on both what I own, and what I learned from my mentors.

In my opinion, the OPs watch is NEVER 1935!

Now, if we could see some assay mark - that would help - a lot!

This is my last post here - I have given my opinion based on what I know - you of course are entitled to yours

Regards - really
adam H



Thank You
A

I thought you were done here lol

[GLADIATOR]

Good point - so did I
Exiting now -my apologies
Adam

[bdex75]

The fact that there are multiple people on this forum that intelligently and passionately debate the semantics of such a scarce watch from over 80 years ago is what makes this place so wonderful.

I am just glad this did not end like so many of these "I inherited my grandpas watch" threads do.

OP, great watch. Find someone to service it with these guys help and wear it on special occasions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

Well I was only answering your question:


Fact is only the model 1 as shown in Dowling/Hess book can be termed "Didactic" - it has nothing to do with Ligne/size at all.
Model 2 nor any other that followed are termed didactic.

I may post the article I wrote on mine.

Regards
Adam H

Termed by whom?

The term "DIDACTIC" is defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary thusly:

intended to teach, particularly in having moral instruction as an ulterior motive: a didactic novel that set out to expose social injustice.
• in the manner of a teacher, particularly so as to treat someone in a patronizing way: slow-paced, didactic lecturing.

This obviously is NOT a ROLEX term but something that an enthusiast has attached to a certain type of Rolex movement based on the watchmaker's instructions engraved on the plate of the automatic mechanism. If taken literally by definition it doesn't even really apply and is a MISUSE of the word.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SIZE of "DIDACTIC" movement by Rolex. So YES it does have to do with ligne size...and very much so.

EIGHT AND THREE QUARTER LIGNE SIZE.

Why do you say that the version 2 and 3 are not "didactic".

They have similar, though progressively less extensive instructions to the watchmaker on the plates. Being that the hijacked definition and use of the term "didactic" would be to describe the watchmaker's instructions...it would seem that 2 and 3 as shown in Dowling's Book would most CERTAINLY be considered "DIDACTIC". If this is NOT the case...then perhaps you can enlighten us as to why?

I'm trying to be reasonably civil here but you have LIMITED information and you don't disclose anything...but contradiction.

YOU SIR are "didactic" by definition.

I'm done.

[mistermann]

Originally Posted by GLADIATOR

Good point - so did I
Exiting now -my apologies
Adam

You can't quit now, you love it here!

[kirksingleton]

op- if you get it serviced, I would not get the case polished!

[jeff hess]

Bubblebacks have taken a beating in price and desirability for a decade or so as they became considered too "small" by collectors. Plus the proliferation of "misuse" or, rather, "Broadening" of the term "bubbleback". Conventional wisdom (Which is changing) was always that a "true bubbleback" was this EXACT style model...straight between the lugs. A pleasure to see this incredible example. Thanks so much for sharing. (AGREE with RWT in the I would love to see this movement in the raw).

[adam78]

Originally Posted by kirksingleton

op- if you get it serviced, I would not get the case polished!

Yes! But frankly it looks near mint as it is!

[Qinhan]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Brilliant post.

x2. A very interesting read and that certificate blows me away.

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Bubblebacks have taken a beating in price and desirability for a decade or so as they became considered too "small" by collectors. Plus the proliferation of "misuse" or, rather, "Broadening" of the term "bubbleback". Conventional wisdom (Which is changing) was always that a "true bubbleback" was this EXACT style model...straight between the lugs. A pleasure to see this incredible example. Thanks so much for sharing. (AGREE with RWT in the I would love to see this movement in the raw).

Definitely some truth to that Jeff.

I would add that the number of people willing to work on them and the "fear" factor in parts availability has also run a lot of people off of them. It became easier to drive your 70's submariner into the ground....being shock resistant and fully jeweled...than to get a properly maintained bubble back and keep it so.

Many watchmakers won't even attempt to make them water resistant...which to me is simply a slap in the face to the great Marque. They were and can be made quite water resistant and they can be made to function very well as a daily wearer watch.

Sure we aren't going diving with them nor are we necessarily expecting 3135 accuracy..but I wore one everyday for 10 years as the only watch I had and it worked great.

Good solid original examples...with better original dials and or gold cases...do still sell and bring a good price. The more common and the more "used" not as much.

This will also follow in the later and sports models as things become more and more selective.

The far east still has a larger interest in the bubble back and they still collect them and maintain a good price point for really quality pieces.

The same things that you and James discussed 20 years ago...hold true...trump cards...18k ... 14k...black dial...lume dial...sub seconds engine turned.....etc. All of those things command a premium. An 18k solid gold hooded with a black, half roman-half arabic dial and benz hands with sub seconds....is more than a 2940 in stainless with a raised marker non lume dial and leaf hands w sweep seconds.

There are a few of us left in America that love the things...

I was lucky enough to help one guy obtain and then restore this one...Even though it is not a pristine dial...the vibe is off the charts...how much better does it get?