5512 meters first 4-liner from 1970 - introduction

[Bjoern88]

Hello, I am new here and recently got my first Vintage Rolex

I am collecting watches for some years now I have pieces from Omega, Oris, Panerai, Hanhart, Tissot and even Zodiac. But just recently I got my first Rolex… I have always been fascinated by vintages Sub’s and GMT’s and during this pandemic I spend more time online as usual and I got more familiar with the history and models. I finally went on a hunt and after 8 months of searching around I finally got my first Submariner a 5512 from 1970 and here is the story.

Believe it or not it nearly landed in the trash … but let’s start from the beginning a young waitress bought her very first house via an estate sale in Northern Ontario it was a “fixer upper”, the previous owner died and the family sold the house with all belongings in it. During cleaning and emptying the house she throw out the so called “junk-drawer” in the garbage and only by luck her father saw the watch… he told her that this is a Rolex; but she thought it was an old fake Rolex … however they took the watch to a local jeweler and he convinced her to send it to Rolex Canada which she did. Rolex Canada confirmed the watch is original and Rolex quoted her to service the watch – gladly she denied as Rolex wanted to replace a bunch of parts such as the dial and hands …

Through the internet I have connected with her and when she picked up the watch at Rolex Canada in Toronto we’ve met at a vintage watch dealer to get his opinion. Her mom was with her and she was quite funny (side story her mom liked my name because when her kids where little she and her husband used the name Bjoern Borg every time they wanted to smoke a joint … so the kids wouldn’t know what it means… lol)

The watch has never been polished and that it has a quite nice dial with the meter first 4-line. The serial number dates the watch to 1970 same does the case back it is stamped inside with 5512 and Q1/1970. Weirdly enough the dealer wanted to buy the watch too but he backed off and I bought the watch from the girl.
I paid what I thought is fair and the girl was super happy because I paid her cash and I paid her more than a watch dealer from California offered her. She now can do more renovations in the house and she is just thrilled... I am thrilled too because I finally have my first vintage sub.

Now what makes me super excited is that my Rolex must be one of the very last 5512 with the meters first dial… I have read on Hodinkee that the Reference 5512 (Matte Dial, Meters First) was made 1967 to 1969. But my Sub is all original with a 1970 serial number and case back stamped 5512 and Q1/1970… so I would argue that Rolex made the matte dial meters first 4-Liner between 1967 – 1970 and not just 1967 – 1969.

I only have a few pictures at this time because the watch is in service right now. I will post more pictures when I get it back in 3-4 weeks.

Thanks for reading and glad to be here!
You all stay healthy,
Bjoern

[soicanbefree]

That's pretty interesting.. I think I have one of the first with a
#14754XX serial which I date to 1966 but have never taken the case back off to check the stamps there.

[btinl]

Originally Posted by soicanbefree

That's pretty interesting.. I think I have one of the first with a
#14754XX serial which I date to 1966 but have never taken the case back off to check the stamps there.

1.4M seems early for a matte dial.

[btinl]

Originally Posted by Bjoern88

Hello, I am new here and recently got my first Vintage Rolex

I am collecting watches for some years now I have pieces from Omega, Oris, Panerai, Hanhart, Tissot and even Zodiac. But just recently I got my first Rolex… I have always been fascinated by vintages Sub’s and GMT’s and during this pandemic I spend more time online as usual and I got more familiar with the history and models. I finally went on a hunt and after 8 months of searching around I finally got my first Submariner a 5512 from 1970 and here is the story.

Believe it or not it nearly landed in the trash … but let’s start from the beginning a young waitress bought her very first house via an estate sale in Northern Ontario it was a “fixer upper”, the previous owner died and the family sold the house with all belongings in it. During cleaning and emptying the house she throw out the so called “junk-drawer” in the garbage and only by luck her father saw the watch… he told her that this is a Rolex; but she thought it was an old fake Rolex … however they took the watch to a local jeweler and he convinced her to send it to Rolex Canada which she did. Rolex Canada confirmed the watch is original and Rolex quoted her to service the watch – gladly she denied as Rolex wanted to replace a bunch of parts such as the dial and hands …

Through the internet I have connected with her and when she picked up the watch at Rolex Canada in Toronto we’ve met at a vintage watch dealer to get his opinion. Her mom was with her and she was quite funny (side story her mom liked my name because when her kids where little she and her husband used the name Bjoern Borg every time they wanted to smoke a joint … so the kids wouldn’t know what it means… lol)

The watch has never been polished and that it has a quite nice dial with the meter first 4-line. The serial number dates the watch to 1970 same does the case back it is stamped inside with 5512 and Q1/1970. Weirdly enough the dealer wanted to buy the watch too but he backed off and I bought the watch from the girl.
I paid what I thought is fair and the girl was super happy because I paid her cash and I paid her more than a watch dealer from California offered her. She now can do more renovations in the house and she is just thrilled... I am thrilled too because I finally have my first vintage sub.

Now what makes me super excited is that my Rolex must be one of the very last 5512 with the meters first dial… I have read on Hodinkee that the Reference 5512 (Matte Dial, Meters First) was made 1967 to 1969. But my Sub is all original with a 1970 serial number and case back stamped 5512 and Q1/1970… so I would argue that Rolex made the matte dial meters first 4-Liner between 1967 – 1970 and not just 1967 – 1969.

I only have a few pictures at this time because the watch is in service right now. I will post more pictures when I get it back in 3-4 weeks.

Thanks for reading and glad to be here!
You all stay healthy,
Bjoern

Congrats, that is a nice 5512!

I am not certain that the dial is original to the watch. The bezel insert is not original for that time period.

[Dan S]

I'm just curious who told you that the watch is unpolished and all original. If it was just found abandoned in a drawer, how would anyone know the history?

[soicanbefree]

Originally Posted by btinl

1.4M seems early for a matte dial.

Here is a slightly earlier one with 1.43 serial.

https://cdn2.chrono24.com/images/uhr...j9nvy-Zoom.jpg

[Bjoern88]

I relied mainly on the vintage watch dealer.p who checked it out for me... he is pretty experienced and reputable. He sells vintage watches himself. His name is Bill Leboeuf in Barrie Ontario. He checked the watch for quite some time and had a lot of good things to say.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Bjoern88

I relied mainly on the vintage watch dealer.p who checked it out for me... he is pretty experienced and reputable. He sells vintage watches himself. His name is Bill Leboeuf in Barrie Ontario. He checked the watch for quite some time and had a lot of good things to say.

And this expert specifically told you it was unpolished and all-original?

[harry in montreal]

It’s a lovely watch. Post some more photos when you get it back. Most would expect a 5512 or 5513 of that era to have a gilt dial. However, You do see some from this timeline with the Matte dial like yours. The insert should have a Long5, but was likely replaced long ago.

Anyway, enjoy the watch. It has a captivating dial.

[btinl]

Originally Posted by soicanbefree

Here is a slightly earlier one with 1.43 serial.

https://cdn2.chrono24.com/images/uhr...j9nvy-Zoom.jpg

The dial was most likely replaced on that one as well. It also has a service bezel insert.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

It’s a lovely watch. Post some more photos when you get it back. Most would expect a 5512 or 5513 of that era to have a gilt dial. However, You do see some from this timeline with the Matte dial like yours. The insert should have a Long5, but was likely replaced long ago.

Anyway, enjoy the watch. It has a captivating dial.

It's quite confusing, this thread. Which of the unverified claims should members address. The OP claiming to have one of the last MF dials, or the hijacker claiming to have one of the first.

[GGGMT]

Chamfers look polished but who cares its a sweet watch.

[77T]

It’s a great story about the seller’s good fortune by listening to her Dad.

Can you imagine if she had said, “Dad, trust me it’s a fake - throw it back in the trash.”

Makes you wonder how many Subs have met with that fate upon its owners trip into the hereafter.

I appreciate the OP’s willingness to share and hope he can stay patient with the self-appointed arbiters of his new/old Sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Chamfers look polished but who cares its a sweet watch.

Agree with the spirit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by 77T

I hope he can stay patient with the self-appointed arbiters of his new/old Sub.

This is very funny.

[narembeen]

First rule of fight club - never say your watch is awesome

[T-Steve]

That is definitely my "coolest watch I've seen today".

The back story alone makes it amazing. I hope you enjoy it. Congratulations!

[bmb15]

Hello and a warm welcome OP!
Many thanks for sharing this great story! Congratulations for the watch, for which you received a service quotation from Rolex Canada. Maybe not everybody understands what that means or implies. Before signing the Rolex service quotation, you have to tell them in writing (best on their quotation) what they must NOT do during the service!

[harry in montreal]

Hey Dan S, I just read your post above. Can you explain the acceptable cutoff date of a gilt to a MF for a 5512/5513?

[Kingface66]

Why are the (very greenish) hands in dreadful shape, while the dial seems to be in very good shape (the lume is so white, and appears flat. Possible washing, or relume?). This coupled with a service bezel, and the mystery of a 1970 case-back with a 1966/67 serial number, makes for a very confusing/suspicious watch.

[Bjoern88]

Thanks for all the comments while some make me smile some other make me wonder... to clarify :

It is an original 5512 from 1970 with matte dial meters first 4-Liner
The serial number is 2419xxx so it is from 1970 not from 66/67
The case back is matching and stamped 5512 Q1 1970
I am convinced the dial is original to that watch because a later service dial would show feet first and not meters first (fyi meters first 4-line matte dial with neat fonts are kinda rare it wouldn't be a service dial)
The bezel insert I am not sure... and I must admit I didn't even think about it till I saw the post... but online you can find pictures of other 5512 from 1970 with that bezel insert.
The hands I have no idea why they age differently then the dial...

I understand that there are a lot of different opinions out there but if you compare you need to compare them watch with other 1970 5512 Submariners... Also I 100% believe that this girl found that watch in the house and her father saved it from the garbage dump... it was a great personal and smooth transaction, very nice and honest people. She also had a quote and Email from Bob's watches who wanted to buy her watch.

Now again I am no Rolex expert but I did quite a bit of reading about Subs and comparison on the internet. I also looked for a nice piece for over 8 month... in addition I involved a very reputable jeweler into my buying decision... but most importantly I am very happy about my first vintage sub.

I just wanted to share the story an the watch here lol ...
I will get it back in 3 weeks and will post better and more pictures.
Thanks, Bjoern

[stewester]

Congratulations on your first vintage Sub!

2.4M Serial matches up with the 1.70 case back but the serial does seem quite late for a meters first dial. I'm not experienced enough to say it's flat-out 'wrong' however.

The shot of the dial does make me wonder if it has been 'washed' of most of its lume - there appears to be remnants of lume on some of the plots. The lume may have discoloured in the same manner as the hands and was therefore removed, or the hands may be an old relume, difficult to say.

The bezel insert is a later, 80's type.

Difficult to comment on the 'unpolishedness' of the case from the single photo provided - it certainly has a sleeve-polished look to it but the crown guards are seriously thick and perspective can be deceiving.

Will be interested to see further photos once you've had it serviced. Good job on saving it from the bin!

All my comments are directed to the OP rather than the 'piggybacker'.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

Hey Dan S, I just read your post above. Can you explain the acceptable cutoff date of a gilt to a MF for a 5512/5513?

Hi Harry. I definitely don't know the exact cutoff, and there is probably some overlap if Rolex followed its typical pattern. Sometime in 1966 and somewhere in the 1.4M range probably. However, if someone knows the answer in detail, it is because he has made a detailed study of one-owner watches with provenance, not just because he has an early watch that happens to have a matte dial.

Really, I was just sympathizing with you in my post because the thread had bifurcated into two parallel paths, with some people commenting on the OP watch and some (like you) commenting on the watch shown in the second post.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by 77T

I appreciate the OP’s willingness to share and hope he can stay patient with the self-appointed arbiters of his new/old Sub.

I'm not criticizing anyone's watch, I'm not a purist. As has been stated many times by many people, service and replacement parts are part of the history of many vintage watches, and should not affect our enjoyment of them.

However, it's clear that many people on this forum are interested in understanding the history of vintage Rolex models, so IMO it's not helpful when people make unfounded historical claims with no evidence, especially when the watch itself empirically contradicts the claims.

[harry in montreal]

Dan, I mentioned the cutoff because I thought it was relevant. It’s a 67 and it’s close-ish to the switchover to MF. The original posters watch is gorgeous but likely had some work done, crown maybe a caseback. Hands are aged so maybe those belonged to the watch originally. It’s just the dial I was wondering about. Good Likelihood the hands and dial came with it, but it’s a mystery

[bmb15]

Originally Posted by stewester

All my comments are directed to the OP rather than the 'piggybacker'.

Bravo! Like that

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

Dan, I mentioned the cutoff because I thought it was relevant. It’s a 67 and it’s close-ish to the switchover to MF.

Are we talking about the watch referred to in post #2, post #6, or a different one? And are we dating by serial number of case-back engraving? ;-)

There are a ton of 1.5M serial MF dial 5513s with the 66 case-backs, so I strongly believe that's an original combination. And I'm not skeptical about a matte MF watch in the 1.4M range, within reason. But the watch linked in post #6, with the chronometer certificate from May 1965 and a matte dial. I agree that's pretty far outside the norm.

[soicanbefree]

Originally Posted by 77T

I appreciate the OP’s willingness to share and hope he can stay patient with the self-appointed arbiters of his new/old Sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

As-is tradition. People take the posted serial number ranges floating out there way too seriously and immediately want to point out all the flaws / parts that weren't original too newbies trying to have a moment of joy.

Serial number ranges are at best guesses / estimates from 1 or 2 collectors who observed patterns among a lot of examples and published their guesses online.

Very little about vintage rolex is concrete or definitive and there are definitely odd edge cases / configurations that pop up.

In my case I really don't care either way. I should have used the qualifiers of maybe, possibly, or likely... for most of us our vintage watches have had many owners so unless we are the original owner its not possible to tell about the originality.

Even those watches passed down in families the children very rarely know if it was serviced or not.. sometimes even the original owners don't know about servicing or if parts were swapped they just did what their jeweler told them to do and enjoyed it..

They weren't as obsessed about the details as this community is today.

Enjoy your new watch OP.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by soicanbefree

As-is tradition. People take the posted serial number ranges floating out there way too seriously and immediately want to point out all the flaws / parts that weren't original too newbies trying to have a moment of joy.

They weren't as obsessed about the details as this community is today.

Of course, you’re right. I know owners of decades-Rolexes who aren’t even aware that vintage forums exist!

However, this IS a vintage forum. It’s not Pinterest where people can post the watches they like and leave it at that. Not that you must know what you’re getting into when coming into it. My first posts here showed all too well I knew nothing about these watches, but I spent some time figuring out that this forum was filled with experts and scrutinizing collectors and I was prepared to learn and be overwhelmed and even humbled. Point being, if you’re going to post a vintage watch here, it’s going to be picked-over. It’s not for everyone, but I think we’re all glad this forum operates as it does.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Why are the (very greenish) hands in dreadful shape, while the dial seems to be in very good shape (the lume is so white, and appears flat. Possible washing, or relume?). This coupled with a service bezel, and the mystery of a 1970 case-back with a 1966/67 serial number, makes for a very confusing/suspicious watch.

Serial on the OP's watch (2.4 million) is correct for late 1969-early '70, but agree 100 percent on the condition. This watch appears to have been tinkered with, with lots of smudges around the hour markers, although more photos would help. Looks like the tritium has been removed.

Something is definitely up with the dial/hands, and it's far from unpolished. All that is OK, as long as the OP hasn't been misled or told otherwise, of course.

As for whether the serial is correct for meters-first, definitely close, so who knows. Seen some around 2.3 million, so not a super stretch at 2.4.

(Apologies, OP. We can be a brutally honest bunch on this forum.)