Tudor 7021/0 - questions for the experts

[achova]

Have come across an odd one - a blue snowflake Tudor Submariner 7021/0 with excellent dial; hands (with appropriate residual tritium glow); case with correct lugs, nice chamfer, and engraving quality I'm accustomed to; clean movement in unusually nice shape with correct roulette wheel - serial 2484. I received it on a Rolex C+I rivet bracelet.

Now the questions about a couple elements which fall outside the norm. Most significantly, the 9542XX serial number is far outside the range published for this reference dating this to approximately 1980. I know Tudor serial dating have a wider tolerance but there are others oddities:

• Case back has no date stamp
• case back not as crisp or nicely finished as expected
• case does not have STAINLESS STEEL marking
• unusual pen marking on inside of lug - would not expect to make it out of quality control
• bezel insert more matte finish than expected

Possible conclusions?

1) Offered on a special basis to some markets / agency
2) Service-replacement case
3) franken?

Like to hear thoughts from the Tudor experts out there - Morgan - Orchi - other Adam?

Thanks!

[harry in montreal]

well, the caseback is for sure bad. the midcase does not look very good because:

(a) it looks factory fresh
(b) it should have the S.S. engraving
(c) the backs of the lugs have no evidence of endlink wear.

i would say the entire case is likely a newer repro. its not worth taking a chance.

[harry in montreal]

FYi - the pen mark on the lug is the same ink as inside the caseback. note the 1997 date. OH YA - 14 years of wearing it, sweating, washing hands etc. and it never wore off the lug. funny. stay away !

harry

[larryccf]

for the heck of it if you were to assume all items are original (and i think they're not) - you're going to have a heckuva time selling it if/when you decide to

think i'd stay away

no, correction, think i'd



just 02

[Frogman4me]

I agree the caseback looks too fresh to be the original. The case IMO is suspect as well and the crown guards look a bit odd but it might just be the angle. I'd be nervous about it.

[joe100]

I didn't wanna be the first to say it earlier, but I don't like much about this one either.

[larryccf]

the curved "I"s in ORIGINAL AND THE "Y"S look good - each leg of the "Y" starts out skinny where they fork off and widen toward the end - those compare exactly to a 898xxx serial i have here

the caseback itself appears original but i still stand on the earlier suggestion

[harry in montreal]

The exterior of the caseback that makes contact w/your wrist...notice how you can see a texture ot the printing of CASE BY ROLEX... i have never seen a texture like that before. after 30 years of wear, its very unusual. looks freshly ground out to me. go for a rougher watch .... most of these 7021s are rough since they were abused when new. they rarely survive in this sort of shape. its just not convincing to me. its looks too new and lacks certain tell tale wear areas that even restored pieces bear

[BaltimoreBrian]

I also noticed that the movement shows it as a 17 jewel movement. The 7021 came with a 17 or 25 jewel ETA 2484 movement. However, i believe the later movements were 25 Jewel. So the serial and jewels don't seem to equate to the same time frame.

[achova]

Appreciate the input - understand the prudence expressed and recommendation on passing on the piece - point clearly made.

The case & lugs otherwise look perfect with correct crown-guard asymmetry which I can show this evening in a profile photo. Movement number also approximately matches other 70's Tudor Subs and hands & dial are perfect.

Would appreciate insight on the specific question of the 7021 serial range & potential replacement case numbers for Tudor.

[harry in montreal]

i think if you read about the jewels... it may in fact be a 25j movement branded as a 17j to gain a reduced duty rating. i read this somewhere that they were screwing around in this fashion in earlier years.

[BaltimoreBrian]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

i think if you read about the jewels... it may in fact be a 25j movement branded as a 17j to gain a reduced duty rating. i read this somewhere that they were screwing around in this fashion in earlier years.

Harry

And following that understanding, that you just described, if this movement was marked with 17j, then the movement would still be earlier than the serial # indicates on this particular watch.

[GlennW]

Here is my 7021....all original and purchased from the original owner. You can check out an earlier post for a picture of the watch before sending for service, it was worn a lot.

Check out the differences in the number 2 (font) on the case model numbers...do they look different? Also, my watch is a 7 million, not sure if a 9 million a little late for a 7021?

[John in MA]

I say legit dial/hands/dial/movement/insert with an aftermarket case.

Tell to me is the groove where the die goes in the back ( look how rough it is) and the engraving is too thin IMO even though the font is correct. You can get aftermarket cases with anything you want engraved in the lugs now.

[achova]

Originally Posted by GlennW

Here is my 7021....all original and purchased from the original owner. You can check out an earlier post for a picture of the watch before sending for service, it was worn a lot.

Check out the differences in the number 2 (font) on the case model numbers...do they look different? Also, my watch is a 7 million, not sure if a 9 million a little late for a 7021?
<snip>

Thanks for all the comments and GlennW - I really appreciate the photos. Interesting that yours also does not have the STAINLESS STEEL text. As for engraving depth - the serial and ref. look like perfect Rolex engraving unlike the common laser etching that stands out under a loupe.

John in TN - I agree that the area where the die is placed into the caseback as well as the other exterior engraving has an unusual rough finish which would be lost with steady wear however the watch back had a large sticker on which I removed - the watch exhibits very little wear otherwise (obviously). The two main red flags remain - the unusually late serial number and the inner stampings on the case-back being lower quality than I'm used to seeing. Maybe an original owner or someone around these in the 70's can confirm or refute whether the engraving finish.

A few more photos

[GlennW]

Stainless Steel stamp is on the serial number side....always make sure that all the middle of the E's are shorter that the top and bottom lines. I turned the case a little in the light to blind out the last of the serial numbers, all the lettering is clear and visible.

[achova]

Originally Posted by GlennW

Stainless Steel stamp is on the serial number side....

Yes - remembered that after I'd posted. Thanks for the addl. pic.

[larryccf]

case - look at the 7" in both the model & serial number engraving on Glennw's and your's. On Glennw's, the 7 has that signature curvature to the vertical leg, where on your's it looks like an attempt was made to emulate it but it's not right

Glennw's



yours



that 7 and unique font 2 are just about signatures of the tudor sub models (haven't looked at the dress watches that much)

i think john in tn is on the money on it being a reproduction case

fwiw

[harry in montreal]

i think its the 'next generation' of bad chinese cases. also look at the crown guards from the rear of the watch. the notch is super square and not quite right.

[achova]

Originally Posted by larryccf

case - look at the 7" in both the model & serial number engraving on Glennw's and your's. On Glennw's, the 7 has that signature curvature to the vertical leg, where on your's it looks like an attempt was made to emulate it but it's not right

<snip>
that 7 and unique font 2 are just about signatures of the tudor sub models (haven't looked at the dress watches that much)
<snip>

Appreciate the analysis and agree there is a significant difference in the curvature of the 7 on these 7021/0 cases - as well as the 1 script.

Took a couple more photos and compared to other Tudor Subs photos and Rolex across the eras in question to compare fonts. The 7 on the 7021/0 in question matches Rolex GMT & Submariner as well as later Tudor Subs and the 1 matches Rolex byt not the Tudor Subs.

60's Tudor Submariner [different 7 | different 1]


1969 Rolex Explorer [different 7 | different 1]


1970 Rolex 1675 [same 7 | same 1]


1970 Rolex 6262 [same 7]


Tudor 7021 in question (? serial approx. 1980 ?)



mid-80's Tudor Submariner [same 7 | different 1 | omit STAINLESS STEEL]