JAMES-BOND-SUBMARINER - Is this real?

[Scarface]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ROLEX-1969-JAM...QQcmdZViewItem

[frostie]

I don't think so because it's too cheap

[Scarface]

I am not sure it is really cheap...note that it is £ not $
£3650 = $ 7265 ... and, if it is real it, it anyway isn't one of the early Bond Submariners but, instead, of the later "Bond" versions of the 70s
Also, this is the price that vintage watch sellers ask for such old Submariners here in the UK - maybe even a bit cheaper.

Anyway, I tend to believe that it is real - and he has sold many vintage watches with good feedback. I assume from the kind of watches he has sold that they are bought by people who know what they buy.

By the way it is overpolished but this is normal for an almost 40 yr watch ...

[ezmoney46]

looks pretty ligit from the pix.

[applebook]

As Scarface says, this is not too cheap at all. To call a 5513 a "Bond" Submariner is misleading. The only true "Bond" Subs were the early 1950s models with no crown guards:

5508 & 6536 (Not mine!)

[bagel]

Originally Posted by Scarface

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ROLEX-1969-JAM...QQcmdZViewItem

According to the pictures, this 5513 looks ok to me but the price is a bit on the high side ...

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by applebook

As Scarface says, this is not too cheap at all. To call a 5513 a "Bond" Submariner is misleading. The only true "Bond" Subs were the early 1950s models with no crown guards

That 's right; crown guards in the Sub appeared in some of the later Bond movies and that 's why the Subs of that time are still, sometimes, called "Bond" ; but the original Bond that Sean Connery was wearing was without crown guards.

Beautiful pics applebook

And this particular watch on ebay IS QUITE expensive and that's why noone is bidding

[stevemulholland3]

it just looks too new to me.something there is not right ,I will tell you that.

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

it just looks too new to me.something there is not right ,I will tell you that.

Steven, I think that it is just OVER-polished...
Just look the edges of the bezel, how soft they are..
But still, looks ok to me, just overpriced

[juneja]

Not so overpriced IMO, given the dial condition (unless of course it's been redialled).
Boxes don't come cheap, and are included.

Bezel insert looks to be a new Luminova insert though.

[clbcpa]

He is claiming that it was worn in 3 more recent bond films than the traditional Bond sub Connery wore (as mentioned above)however, I believe the watch worn by moore in live and let die (sold at sothebys auction a few years ago) was a 1680 from 1974. Also, if it was a movie watch (I have seen several of these) it would have authentication certificate from production studio.

[juneja]

I don't think he's saying that this is the actual watch, I think he's saying that the 5513 model was employed in the films.

R :)

[Goodwatch]

Sigh, so not this one either... (I know, it has to be without crown guards but I like the military touch. Reckon that should be his issue):

[Scarface]

Originally Posted by Goodwatch

Sigh, so not this one either... (I know, it has to be without crown guards but I like the military touch. Reckon that should be his issue):

This military Sub is so beautiful also...I love the "T" .... as well as the Comex Sub

[applebook]

The 5517 blows any of the Bond Subs out of the water, IMO.

It's also substantially rarer and more expensive. The last that I heard, they are going for well over 50,000 GBP now.

[a58ton]

Originally Posted by clbcpa

He is claiming that it was worn in 3 more recent bond films than the traditional Bond sub Connery wore (as mentioned above)however, I believe the watch worn by moore in live and let die (sold at sothebys auction a few years ago) was a 1680 from 1974. Also, if it was a movie watch (I have seen several of these) it would have authentication certificate from production studio.

hi if you watch live let die you,ll see M give moore the watch and you clear see bond trun the dial to red , this is a 5513 as 1680 has a date , and again in live lite die towards the end of the movie you can see moore turn the bezel and this again shows its 5513 , in man with golden gold when bond is outside the bar you clear see him lookin at his watch and it shows 5513 .

[ROGERB]

Originally Posted by a58ton

hi if you watch live let die you,ll see M give moore the watch and you clear see bond trun the dial to red , this is a 5513 as 1680 has a date , and again in live lite die towards the end of the movie you can see moore turn the bezel and this again shows its 5513 , in man with golden gold when bond is outside the bar you clear see him lookin at his watch and it shows 5513 .

Must agree....5513 not a Sub date... I seem to recall the movie prop watch( movement had been removed ) sold a few years back for over 21000 pounds!
R

[clbcpa]

Originally Posted by a58ton

hi if you watch live let die you,ll see M give moore the watch and you clear see bond trun the dial to red , this is a 5513 as 1680 has a date , and again in live lite die towards the end of the movie you can see moore turn the bezel and this again shows its 5513 , in man with golden gold when bond is outside the bar you clear see him lookin at his watch and it shows 5513 .

I stand corrected! Sorry guys.. I did go back just a few minutes ago and watch both scenes from live and let die.. Definitely a 5513. I was sure the scene toward the end of the movie was a 1680 but alas I was wrong. My apologies

[veefour]

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

it just looks too new to me.something there is not right ,I will tell you that.

Bracelet doesn't seems correct, and bezel insert looks aftermarket, or at least, not original.

[stevemulholland3]

upon looking at it again I believe minas was correct,it is just over polished.