Even James had problems with Pussy Galore......

Vintage Rolex Discussion

Even James had problems with Pussy Galore......

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:18 am

February 12th, 2012, 9:15 am #1

When purchasing the Pussy Galore GMT 6542 I did not even consider the "exclamation" mark at 6 oclock. For me the watch had everything that i look for in a vintage Rolex. Provenance, New to the market (not passed from dealer to dealer), 10/10 dial, and an honest watch. Case back 11 1958. I even bought it without examining the movement because I was 100 percent sure it would be correct. Guys pls do not do this, never buy a watch without opening the case back to examine the movement.

Then suddenly a storm brewed over a dot. I had to read some of the hostile posts twice as even I started to have doubts. These doubts lasted only a moment. Did I make a mistake? And an error for all to see? No chance.

The internet is a wonderful tool, and the references and post found were perfect and some troublesome.

Let me try and explain. Troublesome because a few of the so called self proclaimed experts had actually proclaimed this version of the Pussy Galore GMT 6542 a fake, and have forced and overpowered buyers to pass on such a watch. A little knowlwedge is a dangerous tool. Perfect because a found a post on another forum on a similar GMT but with paperwork.

Minor details such as underlines etc on Vintage Rolex are exciting but I would not consider an "exclamation" mark to be in the same catogary. And walking around with a gieger counter, oh please.

5th June 1958 says it all. The buyer was on the edge of rejecting the watch but had better sense than most. He also goes on to say and i quote, "Going deeper in my researches, I found 2 other with an exclamation dot from 1957, and 2 from 1958. So, this one is the 5th I see coming with this configuration."

So in terms of rarity, these dial configuration is up there, and in terms of looks, its the best one to have.


Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 24th, 2005, 7:38 am

February 12th, 2012, 9:50 am #2

Hi K, whilst the exclamation dot debate will obviously run and run, the pic you just posted concerns me. Would need to see other photos in different light but it looks like a possible re-lumed dial and that bakelite insert is very questionable I know this isn't your 6542 but not sure it's the sort of example to post which 'justifies' the exclamation point? This looks like a watch where nothing matches whatsoever.

Kevin
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:18 am

February 12th, 2012, 10:06 am #3

I understand your concerns, I should have mentioned that the buyers does say that the bakelite insert is aftermarket. The lume on the 5 minute markes may or may not have been redone, but that is not the point. The point is that the dot at 6 oclock clearly has not been touched and is original, and the date on the certificate. Would be interesting to find the date on the guarantee.

For me personally the exclamation mark has been blown out of all proportion and does not merit the importance that some have given it.

best,
K
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 24th, 2005, 7:38 am

February 12th, 2012, 11:05 am #4

...thread on the other forum. It clearly states that the bezel is aftermarket, my mistake. At least my eyes are working this morning

We've discussed the dial below (mine) many times before but I've still never seen another one like it. GMT 6542 OCC 'SWISS' underline. Most likely a service dial but only goes to highlight to me that there were no hard and fast rules chez Rolex regarding the timings of placing dots and underlines on dials in the late 50's, early 60's. Anybody attempting to apply strict logic to the process are probably wasting their time. Kevin


Reply
Like
Share

Joined: May 2nd, 2005, 6:34 am

February 12th, 2012, 11:20 am #5


Yes, I am the owner of the 6542 posted by K...

When it was offered to me, it came with its original insert, but the seller wanted 15 K euros more for it...

So, we agreed on an aftermarket one, due to the fact that the original insert was not in supr condition.

As for the dial, now, I will just add some pics of it, as you already read my " trip " on this watch.







Yours has a superb underline dial. From what year is it?

Best,

Nicolas
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:18 am

February 12th, 2012, 11:31 am #6

...thread on the other forum. It clearly states that the bezel is aftermarket, my mistake. At least my eyes are working this morning

We've discussed the dial below (mine) many times before but I've still never seen another one like it. GMT 6542 OCC 'SWISS' underline. Most likely a service dial but only goes to highlight to me that there were no hard and fast rules chez Rolex regarding the timings of placing dots and underlines on dials in the late 50's, early 60's. Anybody attempting to apply strict logic to the process are probably wasting their time. Kevin

Kevin it is not a service dial.....its rare and you should be happy with that.

The theory the "Mob" are trying to push down ones throat in a very aggressive manner is that a 6542 with an exclamation mark should have a metal insert. That is nonsense.

The only thing that makes sense with vintage Rolex is that sometimes things dont have to make sense. With Rolex expect the unexpected.

So what does one do when one finds a Vintage Rolex that does not exists in books, in minds, and even Rolex denies its existance. Does one pass?

My most memorable purchases have been when they did not exists in books, in minds, and even Rolex denied their existance. But in every case, Rolex then confirmed with actual paperwork. An example is the prototype Sea Dweller Submariner (without 2000. Everyone said it was wrong. PS and Eric did not exist at that time, and Mike Wood said and I quote, "I would not touch it with a barge pole".

I think one should listen less to what the "Mob" has to say, their word is over sold. Keping an open mind is the key.

Best,
K

Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:18 am

February 12th, 2012, 11:35 am #7

Yes, I am the owner of the 6542 posted by K...

When it was offered to me, it came with its original insert, but the seller wanted 15 K euros more for it...

So, we agreed on an aftermarket one, due to the fact that the original insert was not in supr condition.

As for the dial, now, I will just add some pics of it, as you already read my " trip " on this watch.







Yours has a superb underline dial. From what year is it?

Best,

Nicolas
as a matter of interest, please can you confirm the date of purchase on the guarantee card. ofcourse the date on the guarantee is not always the date when it was first offered for sale, in that steel sports watches were always slow to sell and sometimes the watch would in stoc for several years.

Best,
K
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: May 2nd, 2005, 6:34 am

February 12th, 2012, 11:42 am #8

The date on the warranty is 29th of September 1959.

So in this case it was not too long.

So according to you, is the dial relumed? I don't think so, but I would be interested in reading your opinion.

Best,

Nicolas
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 16th, 2006, 11:27 pm

February 12th, 2012, 11:47 am #9

Yes, I am the owner of the 6542 posted by K...

When it was offered to me, it came with its original insert, but the seller wanted 15 K euros more for it...

So, we agreed on an aftermarket one, due to the fact that the original insert was not in supr condition.

As for the dial, now, I will just add some pics of it, as you already read my " trip " on this watch.







Yours has a superb underline dial. From what year is it?

Best,

Nicolas
kind regards. achim
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 24th, 2005, 7:38 am

February 12th, 2012, 11:48 am #10

The date on the warranty is 29th of September 1959.

So in this case it was not too long.

So according to you, is the dial relumed? I don't think so, but I would be interested in reading your opinion.

Best,

Nicolas
Is that the lume has been cleaned at some stage, so the markers actaully have a more 'washed' look about them than re-lumed. Compare them to the 'spongier' appearance on the dial below.


Reply
Like
Share