Confusing 5513

[Kingface66]

Jessy has this for sale here, and I’m a bit baffled. It seems to have a serial number that could make it a ‘66, a case back stamp of ‘65, but most confusing, a glossy dial….but, with white print. I’ve seen meters first matte dials from ca. 1966 (even owned one about ten years ago) but never a white print on a gloss dial. Any insight from anyone?

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=898667

[GGGMT]

interesting. Title says matte dial description says glossy, dial pictures seem to me to look like matte.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan S]

I think maybe the title is poorly written and confusing, which muddles things up. It says "Transitional Gilt/Matte Dial", but there is nothing gilt about it, and it's not obviously not matte either. It would have been better to write something like "Transitional Glossy Dial with White Printing," if that's what the seller believes.

Under the description of the dial, the seller expresses a clear opinion about it being a transitional glossy dial with white printing, claiming that this is correct for the time period. I haven't handled enough of these to comment on the correctness of this.

"Dial: Excellent period correct glossy dial with white print on the dial instead of the usual gilt from the time period. The font and print is identical to that of a gilt dial from this period. Unique to this watch is the white print typically found on the following generation of dials which were matte. The markers have aged to an even creamy yellow patina. The glossy finish on the dial is in excellent condition with only slight imperfections. It is a unique dial composition from the period when Rolex was converting from gilt dials to matte dials."

[springer]

A 1.3 million case is clearly within the gilt era from what I know. Additionally, the dial appears gem mint as well as the hands. The bezel insert is vintage 1980s. More research needs to be done on this 5513.

[some.idiot]

Is it normal for the lume to not perfectly fill the print design underneath?

[antrolexsub]

Interesting dial and seldom seen. I believe these were very early service dials rather than transitional dials.

[one80]

Hmmm…
bezel looks to be later, and I would have said hands were later too (or service). A gloss service dial certainly isn’t common, so would need input from someone that knows these better than I do.

[Pete_mcC]

Originally Posted by some.idiot

Is it normal for the lume to not perfectly fill the print design underneath?

Yes, it’s similar to my 1953 6202 with a mid 60s glossy Tritium service dial:

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by Pete_McC

Yes, it’s similar to my 1953 6202 with a mid 60s glossy Tritium service dial:

Can I please ask if the below watch is yours?

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Can I please ask if the below watch is yours?

Sure doesn’t look like it to me. Tropical. Bezel. Diff diff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Sure doesn’t look like it to me. Tropical. Bezel. Diff diff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks for confirming - I didn't think so either but just wanted to make sure.

Sorry to take this off-topic.

We are back on track!

[Pete_mcC]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Can I please ask if the below watch is yours?

No, that’s an original Radium dial judging by the Swiss only label, mine is a 1960s glossy Tritium service dial as the original owner said was concerned about radiation

[some.idiot]

Originally Posted by Pete_McC

Yes, it’s similar to my 1953 6202 with a mid 60s glossy Tritium service dial:

What a freaking cool watch.

Is the lume hand-applied?

[one80]

Some insight on VRF from Xeramic - LINK

Check viewtopic.php?p=548184#p548184 - at that time, it was just the second one I've ever seen (after another one on VRF some years ago, but unfortunately the pictures are gone), thus my vote for a prototype in the sense of a manufacturer execution sample.

The one on TRF is (well, rather was as it got offered already an year ago: https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=854075) number three.

All three were/are in very good condition.

It's well possible that these are late 60s service dials, maybe for important customers who insisted on a glossy version; but in regard to their condition I wouldn't discard the possibility of mounted sample dials yet... further, the use of the font/layout of the last gilt execution rather points to a sample dial (= made towards the end of the gilt dial era as a sample for a future white-on-gloss printing) - on a slightly later service dial, I'd rather await the font/layout of the current matte meters first dial, just for rationalization; but who knows.

The insert is 80s, the handset shows a different lume (but should at least glow after, like the dial most probably does).

Greetings,
Xeramic

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by one80

Some insight on VRF from Xeramic - LINK

Check viewtopic.php?p=548184#p548184 - at that time, it was just the second one I've ever seen (after another one on VRF some years ago, but unfortunately the pictures are gone), thus my vote for a prototype in the sense of a manufacturer execution sample.

The one on TRF is (well, rather was as it got offered already an year ago: https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=854075) number three.

All three were/are in very good condition.

It's well possible that these are late 60s service dials, maybe for important customers who insisted on a glossy version; but in regard to their condition I wouldn't discard the possibility of mounted sample dials yet... further, the use of the font/layout of the last gilt execution rather points to a sample dial (= made towards the end of the gilt dial era as a sample for a future white-on-gloss printing) - on a slightly later service dial, I'd rather await the font/layout of the current matte meters first dial, just for rationalization; but who knows.

The insert is 80s, the handset shows a different lume (but should at least glow after, like the dial most probably does).

Greetings,
Xeramic

Some great insight there.
Alas, it’s still inconclusive exactly what this is. Which, I suppose, means putting a value on it, and claiming that it’s “this” or “that” dial seems premature at best.

[PaulMiami]

My 1.19m serial number 5513 had a similar looking service dial, but it wasn’t in great shape, was flaking, and it had been sloppily retouched around the bottom of the dial. I got it as a gift from my great uncle, he bought it new. The service dial was installed in the late 1960s or maybe very early 1970s. I had to total refinish my dial as it was beyond repair, but this dial looks great, it seems authentic and from the era, but not what the watch had when it left the factory. The price reflects that it’s not a gilt dial, but, regardless it’s a great looking watch.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by PaulMiami

My 1.19m serial number 5513 had a similar looking service dial, but it wasn’t in great shape, was flaking, and it had been sloppily retouched around the bottom of the dial. I got it as a gift from my great uncle, he bought it new. The service dial was installed in the late 1960s or maybe very early 1970s. I had to total refinish my dial as it was beyond repair, but this dial looks great, it seems authentic and from the era, but not what the watch had when it left the factory. The price reflects that it’s not a gilt dial, but, regardless it’s a great looking watch.

In your other thread, you stated that the service dial on your watch was matte, which is normal. We are all familiar with those dials. The OP dial in this thread is glossy, with white print. It's definitely not a standard service dial. and that's why there has been such interest. If you read the thread, you'll see that there is some difference of opinion. It's an anomaly, and a good opportunity to learn.

[PaulMiami]

Originally Posted by Dan S

In your other thread, you stated that the service dial on your watch was matte, which is normal. We are all familiar with those dials. The OP dial in this thread is glossy, with white print. It's definitely not a standard service dial. and that's why there has been such interest. If you read the thread, you'll see that there is some difference of opinion. It's an anomaly, and a good opportunity to learn.

My bad, this seemed also to be matte, but looking closely at the photos, it’s glossy. Very different from mine.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by PaulMiami

My bad, this seemed also to be matte, but looking closely at the photos, it’s glossy. Very different from mine.

I don’t have that trained of an eye, but this seems to me at first glance to be a mat dial


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

I don’t have that trained of an eye, but this seems to me at first glance to be a mat dial


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not only is it glossy, but Jessy, who’s selling it and is in possession of it clearly states “Excellent period correct glossy dial with white print”.

It’s a bit of a concern when a dealer leaves it up to the buyer to decide exactly what a dial like this is, rather than researching it enough to say definitively what it is. Because “Unique to this watch is the white print typically found on the following generation of dials which were matte.”

Yeah, it’s unique to this watch. We get that. But is it in any way whatsoever authentic? A service dial? A repainted dial?
Just way too many questions that aren’t answered.

[PaulMiami]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

I don’t have that trained of an eye, but this seems to me at first glance to be a mat dial


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m also a novice.

That said, from what I’ve seen, the gilt dials are all glossy and have gold/gilt letters and markers that are essentially the brass plate shining through the black glossy finish that also has a coat of clear lacquer.

I believe we all agree this is surely not a gilt dial as it has white letters and markers. But it also seems to have gloss in the photos and it’s described as glossy. So it’s not matte from what I can tell.

Looks great, but the question is whether it’s authentic or not as it’s very unusual.

[PaulMiami]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Not only is it glossy, but Jessy, who’s selling it and is in possession of it clearly states “Excellent period correct glossy dial with white print”.

It’s a bit of a concern when a dealer leaves it up to the buyer to decide exactly what a dial like this is, rather than researching it enough to say definitively what it is. Because “Unique to this watch is the white print typically found on the following generation of dials which were matte.”

Yeah, it’s unique to this watch. We get that. But is it in any way whatsoever authentic? A service dial? A repainted dial?
Just way too many questions that aren’t answered.

In total agreement

[Vincent65]

Don’t see those every day. Looks great, whatever it is - probably a glossy service dial.
Service insert, too.

[Noahgraph]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Don’t see those every day. Looks great, whatever it is - probably a glossy service dial.
Service insert, too.

What is it about the insert that proves that? The serif? Thanks in advance.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Noahgraph

What is it about the insert that proves that? The serif? Thanks in advance.

Flat, broad-top 4, for starters

[tomvox1]

Revisiting this old topic with hopefully some new thoughts --
The layout of this strange 5513 dial is actually pretty darn similar to the 5512 "Neat Fonts" dial -- the main difference being in the amount of hash marks around and printing of SWISS T<25 (from what can be observed with the hands of the former being in dealer "10:10" position 😉).
But I, at least, have never seen a meters-first 5513 with this dial before, gloss finish or matte.




Obviously, the claim of a gloss finish is quite bizarre -- it would be informative to know whether the print lies on top of this gloss coating or beneath. Also, if it was actually produced in the mid-'60s in sequence with other early matte dials, one would expect to see the characteristic Zinc Sulfide-type lume compound and, at least from the pictures, that doesn't seem to me to be the case on the 5513 in question (hard to say that with 100% certainty, of course).
So Xeramic's guess is as decent a shot in the dark as anyone's, although why Rolex would feel the need to print up a special batch of meters-first service dials when they had a ton of matte meters-first and then feet-first ones on hand is beyond me. I can't believe any owner in the 1960s, '70s or even '80s would notice such a subtle detail as meters-first or clamor to keep his watch MF even if he did. Likewise, I don't think keeping a glossy dial would be such a motivating factor either, particularly without gilt print.
My guess is that it is a genuine dial that wasn't, in fact, used during the 1960s but rather retrofitted by Rolex at a much later date when a discerning owner may actually have known the value of keeping his watch meters-first and/or glossy (perhaps after catastrophic water incursion or the like?). The later service bezel insert and (maybe?) later hands might give credence to this hypothesis, assuming the work was done at the same time. I have certainly never seen a Tritium-era dial with this combination of attributes.
Safe to say it needs more research, some proper in person eye-balling and, in a perfect world, pulling the actual dial from the watch for a look at the back of it.
Best,
T.

[springer]

Hello Tom, for me, speculation at its best describes this dial/watch combination. I don't believe it is some type of prototype as Xer postulated. Too much is not correct with the watch. Wrong insert, unknown dial, later hands and the absence of anything indicating that it is a zinc sulfide example. Could be an aftermarket dial too but it appears more genuine that aftermarket. It is pure guesswork on what is going on with this watch - it would be nice to have more definite answers.

[tomvox1]

Originally Posted by springer

Hello Tom, for me, speculation at its best describes this dial/watch combination. I don't believe it is some type of prototype as Xer postulated. Too much is not correct with the watch. Wrong insert, unknown dial, later hands and the absence of anything indicating that it is a zinc sulfide example. Could be an aftermarket dial too but it appears more genuine that aftermarket. It is pure guesswork on what is going on with this watch - it would be nice to have more definite answers.

Agreed, John -- very strange combo to say the least! But these Neat Fonts on a non-Chronometer Sub dial are intriguing. Will have to check my files but I can honestly say that I don't think I'ver ever seen a 5513 dial like this one.
Missing link or...?
All the best, old friend,
Tom

[Xeramic]

Don't miss the sequel:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...7.html#p623834

Greetings,
Xeramic

[77T]

Originally Posted by Xeramic

Don't miss the sequel:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...7.html#p623834

Greetings,
Xeramic

This makes the most sense - reach to the seller and have a respectful conversation.

Who can say differently?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro