A few questions about 40's Rolex watches.

[mechachia]

I just bought two vintage Rolex watches, a 1936 Oyster Royal, and a Victory of undetermined year. I have a modern Datejust and am familiar with newer Rolex models, but it's been next to impossible to find information on anything prior to 1950, so hopefully someone here can answer a few questions.

- Is there a comprehensive source of info on pre-1950 Rolex somewhere that I'm missing?

- Do the Victory serial numbers fit the same scheme as other Rolex models? If so, mine would have been made in 1947, but that seems late as I've read that they were marketed largely to Canadian soldiers going off to WWII. I know Rolex outsourced the cases on these, so maybe they had a different SN scheme?

- What kind of buckle came on the leather straps of that era? I've seen a few ads from the time posted on this forum, but none show the buckles. This probably varies a lot, like everything else from that era seems to, but were the style pictured in the attachment, with the soldered on crown logo, used at that time?

- The Victory, as I understand it, was never designed to be water resistant, correct?

- But the Oyster was, and I'd like to make it so again, if possible. It looks like it has the same style o-ring on the back as current models, and the acrylic crystal I presume seals the same way - with pressure from the bezel. Does the stem/stem tube use rubber gaskets? I found a reference to a metal gasket the preceded the twinlok crown.

Thanks to anyone who can shed light on this very hazy subject.

[R.W.T.]

I could write a book.

The serial number lists apply to OYSTER cases only up to a certain point. There is some speculation as to when that is.

Gents cases...Tudor cases...Tudor Oyster cases...are not in that same world.
Oyster Oyster Watch Co. Cases are. It's confusing.

Rolex contracted everything in that era and basically it hasn't changed..they simply absorbed the various entities that made everything into their own company.

No the Victory model is a non oyster case...so it was not waterproof.

Please show photos of the 1936 Viceroy. What is the reference on the case and the serial and photos of the movement and inside of case back are helpful.

The waterproofing was done in a completely different manner based on a similar principal. Early cases are 3 piece...the bezel and back screw onto a movement ring and the case body is sandwiched between them using lead gaskets...there is also a lead gasket in the end of the crown...NONE of these are very affective and it is more akin to head gaskets in a car...you can't re torque them...Rubber replacements may be utilized. The second series cases featured the bezel as part of the middle case...some were semi permanently screwed on with a gasket only to be remediated by the factory service center and others were machined out of one piece of metal. The back screws into the case middle.

The crystal is compression fit and expands into the rehaute flange...the expansion against the rehaute creates the seal. The waterproofing process of these is tedious and daunting today. Original crystals have been obsoleted for decades. The old profile ones...that came before if you ever find any...one friend who is an expert on them said to me...you need about 5 because you will break 4 before you get one in successfully.

I waterproof these using gs type crystals every week. There are a few tricks. Just because a crystal goes in does NOT mean it will create a good seal...and an identical one from the same lot may.

Once I see your particular "Viceroy" I can shed more light.

The buckles in this era were unsigned and had no crown. There are a couple of varieties.

[mechachia]

Thanks for the reply. I've attached pictures of the two watches. I do not have either in my possession yet.

The 1936 (date based on the serial number) is not a Viceroy, but an Oyster Royal. The dial is obviously restored. The seller described it as being "restored and serviced", but clarified when I asked that water resistance was not part of the service.

And it's not as though I plan to go swimming with these. But I do intend to wear it hiking and I'd just like it to be water resistant enough to stand up to sweat or accidental exposures. I have some silicone grease that I use to seal the threads on eyedropper fill fountain pens. A very small amount will keep the ink inside the pen. Would it be crazy to just put a little of that on the threads of the back and stem tube and call it a day?

The other, the Victory, appears to be unrestored. The seller said it runs well. I don't know when it was made, but it appears not to be a shock resistant movement, so I'm thinking early 40's? Would you agree?

I've read that the later shock resistant movements were designed to withstand a 3' fall onto hardwood. The earlier ones, though, were often marketed to guys going off to war, so I can't imagine they're all that delicate. Any thoughts on that?

[Nick9]

The Victory (?) has shock protection. Looks like it could use a cleaning/service, as you can see.

You are right; these are not delicate. I personally wouldn’t worry too much about water resistance in normal use. Take it off if you’re doing dishes, I guess.

Fun watches, those guys.

[mechachia]

Originally Posted by Nick9

The Victory (?) has shock protection.

I'd like to be wrong about this, but looking at the jewel for the balance wheel, I don't see anything that looks like a shock absorption system. It looks like the same mount as the other one. Am I missing something?

[Nick9]

Originally Posted by mechachia

I'd like to be wrong about this, but looking at the jewel for the balance wheel, I don't see anything that looks like a shock absorption system. It looks like the same mount as the other one. Am I missing something?

The picture’s not great, but it appears to me there’s a Incabloc spring on both balances. The silver-coloured things around the jewels.

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by Nick9

The Victory (?) has shock protection. Looks like it could use a cleaning/service, as you can see.

You are right; these are not delicate. I personally wouldn’t worry too much about water resistance in normal use. Take it off if you’re doing dishes, I guess.

Fun watches, those guys.

The Victory does NOT have shock protection. Actually neither of them do.

Mid 40s 15 jewel 710 calibre. Aegler based.

If you drop either of them on hardwood you will break the staff.

The Royal has been restored...it's pretty late for that movement but...Rolex did strange things. It's not the first time I've seen a mid 30's 10.5 ligne that was a late Rebberg. The case appears to me to be untouched with the original milling surface on the bezel...and honest "cuff-buff" on the rest of the case.

That is a pre - reference number case and it has the Large barrel crown on it.

It could be made water resistant. It's just whether or not you want to make the effort.

I'd have to uncase the movement and then test it empty. It might pass...it might not...then you see where the leaks are...if it has rubber gaskets in the back and crown...it will likely not leak there...it could leak around the case tube in which case it would likely need some lock-tite. Then you might have leaks at the crystal if it didn't expand tight enough into the rehaute flange. They you just have to keep putting crystals in until you get one that will seal. But rest assured...if you have ever been swimming in a pool that had a high dive board...that's 15 feet deep generally. If you've ever swum down to the bottom you know you're NEVER going deeper than that without tanks...and that's not much water resistance when you are pulling vacuum. You're not going to intentionally dive with that watch :-) It only has to seal as low as you're going to go. :-)

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by mechachia

I'd like to be wrong about this, but looking at the jewel for the balance wheel, I don't see anything that looks like a shock absorption system. It looks like the same mount as the other one. Am I missing something?

Nope that is correct.

[Nick9]

Originally Posted by R.W.T.

Nope that is correct.

Thanks for sorting this out; I stand corrected.

[mechachia]

Originally Posted by R.W.T.

The Royal has been restored...it's pretty late for that movement but...Rolex did strange things.

They certainly did. There seems to be very little consistency among the pre-1950 watches.

In terms of the restoration, does the design of the Royal dial seem like it's likely the same as it originally looked? It's simpler than most Rolex dials I've seen from that era. Most of them have numbers more like those on the Victory. As I understand it, dial restorers don't always make it look the same as the original design and will just go with the closest thing they've got in stock. Also, that watch does have a reference number on the outside of the back. It's marked with 2280 and a crown logo at the top, and the SN at the bottom.

I did some searching yesterday and I did find a couple examples of watches that said "shock resisting" on the dials, but that had balance jewel mounts that looked like the ones on these watches. So either Rolex had a shock resistant mount that looked like that at one point, or those watches had been modified with a non-shock resistant mount, which seems unlikely. I guess they could be frankenwatches with older movements and newer dials? In any case, I'll take a close up photo of that mount when I actually have them in hand.

The worst case scenario I'm imagining for water resistance is one where I'm hiking up a river bed, slip, and my arm goes into the water, or I slip on the bank getting out of my kayak and my arm goes in the water. So that's the sort of accidental exposure I'd like them to be able to handle. No swimming or diving.

[mechachia]

Deleted: double post

[Old Expat Beast]

One of these two says SHOCKPROOF on the dial, and both seem to be advertised as such

[2000-NJDEVILS]

They’re antique watches - original Rolex parts to repair aren’t commonplace and I can assure you from owning a “Bubbleback” they do malfunction and repairs ain’t cheap....

[mechachia]

That ad's a good example of what, to my modern sensibilities, is so strange about Rolex of that era. Both watches are Victory models, advertised as shockproof, but only one says it on the dial. The bottom one, which says neither, looks like the one I bought.

There seems to be no consistency to the branding at that time. Any given watch may or may not have its model, shockproof, the crown logo, or even the Rolex name on the dial, and I see no obvious reason why.

The same applies to cases, movements, and pretty much everything else in that era. Their product line to day seems much more defined and consistent.

[mechachia]

Originally Posted by 2000-NJDEVILS

They’re antique watches - original Rolex parts to repair aren’t commonplace and I can assure you from owning a “Bubbleback” they do malfunction and repairs ain’t cheap....

Yeah, so... in anticipation of that eventuality, I've asked about repair at a couple jewelry stores in the area, one of which is an AD, and the response was along the lines of "Uuuuuhh..."

Did you find a local place for repairs or did you send them somewhere? Do you remember any of the repairs and what they cost? I'd like to have some idea what to expect.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by mechachia

That ad's a good example of what, to my modern sensibilities, is so strange about Rolex of that era. Both watches are Victory models, advertised as shockproof, but only one says it on the dial. The bottom one, which says neither, looks like the one I bought.

The bottom one looks like it lacks dial space for more text.

[2000-NJDEVILS]

Originally Posted by mechachia

Yeah, so... in anticipation of that eventuality, I've asked about repair at a couple jewelry stores in the area, one of which is an AD, and the response was along the lines of "Uuuuuhh..."

Did you find a local place for repairs or did you send them somewhere? Do you remember any of the repairs and what they cost? I'd like to have some idea what to expect.

Main Spring was cheap, just $250.. The stem, wheel train and jumper were over $1500. Since you’re in NYC, I would suggest G&S (Gabriel and Simcha) the Rolex watch repair guys on 47th St....
Good Luck in whatever you decide to do!

[mechachia]

Originally Posted by 2000-NJDEVILS

Main Spring was cheap, just $250.. The stem, wheel train and jumper were over $1500. Since you’re in NYC, I would suggest G&S (Gabriel and Simcha) the Rolex watch repair guys on 47th St....
Good Luck in whatever you decide to do!

I'm actually upstate, but I'll keep that shop in mind.

[mechachia]

The Victory arrived today. Overall, I think it looks nicer than it did in the seller's pictures. Most of the dial is actually gold colored (gold filled, like the case?) and reflects light. The hands are blued steel, which you can see at certain angles.

This is the best shot I could get of the movement, and it does not look like there's any kind of spring on the balance jewel.

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by 2000-NJDEVILS

Main Spring was cheap, just $250.. The stem, wheel train and jumper were over $1500. Since you’re in NYC, I would suggest G&S (Gabriel and Simcha) the Rolex watch repair guys on 47th St....
Good Luck in whatever you decide to do!

THAT is absurd. What model is this?

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by mechachia

They certainly did. There seems to be very little consistency among the pre-1950 watches.

In terms of the restoration, does the design of the Royal dial seem like it's likely the same as it originally looked? It's simpler than most Rolex dials I've seen from that era. Most of them have numbers more like those on the Victory. As I understand it, dial restorers don't always make it look the same as the original design and will just go with the closest thing they've got in stock. Also, that watch does have a reference number on the outside of the back. It's marked with 2280 and a crown logo at the top, and the SN at the bottom.

I did some searching yesterday and I did find a couple examples of watches that said "shock resisting" on the dials, but that had balance jewel mounts that looked like the ones on these watches. So either Rolex had a shock resistant mount that looked like that at one point, or those watches had been modified with a non-shock resistant mount, which seems unlikely. I guess they could be frankenwatches with older movements and newer dials? In any case, I'll take a close up photo of that mount when I actually have them in hand.

The worst case scenario I'm imagining for water resistance is one where I'm hiking up a river bed, slip, and my arm goes into the water, or I slip on the bank getting out of my kayak and my arm goes in the water. So that's the sort of accidental exposure I'd like them to be able to handle. No swimming or diving.

A plethora of dial styles...that dial is certainly an acceptable motif for the era.

As for the 2280 cool! Sometimes they don't show a reference number but that is basically the size. A 2280 with THAT crown is very early. What is the serial on the case? I would say it is VERY rare that you would find a Rebberg in a 2280.

No. Rolex did NOT have jewel settings that looked like that that were shock resistant. I'm a watchmaker with probably more knowledge about the ins and outs of these movements from this era than anyone else around. I learned from a Certified Rolex Watchmaker who started at the bench in 1940 at age 13. He repaired these when they were new. He was also an AD in the 1950s. He forgot more knowledge of watches from the golden era than most people ever knew. With his tutelage and my own experience over the last 20 or so years...I have worked on literally 100's of these watches and have noted the running changes that I have seen, especially in "untouched" pieces.

The shock resisting movements came on in about 1945 on the 10.5 line hand wind ONLY...the first was a bit different and called "Super Shock" it had fingers over the cap jewel on both sides. They didn't use them on ALL of the 10.5 ligne either...so some got it..some didn't. The slightly later version continued on the 700-710 and also on the 635-645 and 745-775 models and used a "spin in" cap jewel on the balance cock. I don't have time to photograph all the versions and post them...but those are NOT shock. You'll have to trust me. I know of what I speak :-)

Rebberg was NEVER shock resistant. BTW.

You can get that watch to the water resistance you need. Not really a problem.

The Victory looks fine and I agree far better than the photos from the seller. The movement looks in very good shape all things considered in that it was not a water resistant case.

You can PM me if you like.

[R.W.T.]

The first image is of "Super Shock"

The second is the later Shock Resisting.

[mechachia]

Well, I've resolved to assume that neither of them are shock resistant. Not like I was planning to drop or knock them around anyway :-P

I've seen those later shock resisting movements. But take a look at this watch I found online. It's apparently a later movement than mine as it's 17 jewels instead of 15, but it says shockproof on the dial, and look at the mount for the balance jewel. Looks the same as the non-shock resistant ones. I've found a fair number of examples like that. What do you make of that?

I'm not familiar with the term Rebberg. Is that the name of the movement?

I now have the 2280 in my possession. I'm surprised how nice it is. It's really built to the same standard as my 90's Datejust. It's just smaller and hand-winding. I've clearly underestimated the capabilities for precision machining that existed in the 1930's. The SN is 82597, which if the chart on Bob's Watches is to be believed, puts it at 1936. I contacted the seller and he says that the dial was redone exactly as it looked before.

Where it says "Rolex hairspring" on the 2280... Was there something special about that hairspring at the time, as far as you know? I know Rolex made springs of exotic materials later on, but back then?

Both sellers say the watches were cleaned and oiled recently, and both seem to be running well and keeping good time. I think I'll just wear them for a while before I consider having anything further done to them.

[R.W.T.]

That's a calibre 59 and while they did make that movement later as shock proof..that one is NOT Shock Proof. It's the same rigid balance hole and cap jewel set up as the ones on your watches. The dial is either later or the movement was swapped out down the line or the dial is an old refinish and the shock proof was put on it.
Even though it says SWISS MADE at the bottom...the fonts don't look exactly swift.

Rolex Hairspring... The thing is Rolex was trying probably do something to set their contracted version of the Rebberg apart from the ones bought and used by other makers. They might have used a different alloy or had the spring contracted specifically made a different way...or by a different maker. Rolex has kind of always been a LOT about marketing.

Wear them in good health. They are very good watches. They served a lot of people over the years.

[mechachia]

Originally Posted by R.W.T.

The dial is either later or the movement was swapped out down the line or the dial is an old refinish and the shock proof was put on it.

Ah... hadn't thought about the possibility of a dial refinish. That seems like the most likely possibility.

One more question. Looking at the crown of the Victory with a loupe, there's something in it that I'm thinking is an old, dried out rubber gasket. There's a small stem tube that protrudes from the case, but the crown does not screw down. I'm thinking that gasket was intended to press against the stem tube in an attempt to give it some measure of dust and/or water resistance. Does that seem right?

I can also see a ring of discoloration in the metal on the back and case where I'm thinking there was likely a ~1.5mm wide rubber gasket there, whether it came from the factory that way or someone added it later.

[R.W.T.]

I don't think there was originally either of those gaskets. Rubber was not a material being used much at that time for gaskets but possibly. Lead was the original material for Rolex gaskets..then rubber but maybe during a later service. But when those movements were made there weren't any rubber gaskets being used to my knowledge. I don't think the rubber was of a stable enough quality to really be effective. At some point Rolex was satisfied that the rubber could be more effective and thank God they did because the lead gaskets were hopeless. You really didn't get but one chance. If you needed to regulate the watch you inherently needed to replace the gasket again. Your premise is right I think but it was likely to keep dust out..and then possibly some airborne moisture. I don't think submersion was ever really part of the equation. The early non screw down waterproof crowns from other makers and also the Super Oyster did function somewhat like you indicate I agree. I'm just not sure on the Victory and those type of non oyster cases because there isn't much documentation.

[Richard Carver]

wowTommy. write the book:)

[Nick9]

Originally Posted by Richard Carver

wowTommy. write the book:)

+ 1. Very useful and appreciated!

[Dr.Smellody]

Originally Posted by Richard Carver

wowTommy. write the book:)

For sure! Tommy knows these watches. Amazing knowledge.