little hommage to AAKV

Vintage Rolex Discussion

little hommage to AAKV

Joined: August 26th, 2003, 12:30 pm

January 24th, 2012, 11:35 pm #1

a dial comparison : 3 " mk2 " dials for 5512 .....
1) mk2 chronometer dial with underline ;
2) mk2 two lines ( without und. or ex.pt ) ; this very faded dial belongs to an italian friend of mine and , believe me or not , I know it very well and
I can well promise you that indexes and hands are not red-done and certainly not made with radium.
3) mk2 dial with underline ; also this one is in Italy ( in Emilia-Romagna as the previous one )





( edit for typo ! )
Last edited by marci52 on January 24th, 2012, 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 9th, 2004, 2:59 pm

January 25th, 2012, 12:40 am #2


With all due respect, I would ask  what year are the watches, what market were they sold in and how are we certain its not radium and what is it then if it isn't.

I'm not suggesting these watches are from 1965 but by way of example just to illustrate the size of the US market in 1965 compared with the rest of the world combined markets, as this is from an unimpeachable source as per Mr Myers only 100 to 300 watches a week were being imported by Rolex into the USA say maximum of 15000 watches a year. So for 1965 as an example the other approximately 120,000 watches were going to other markets which until the 1963 Rome convention came into force (some time later)  generally had absolutely no restrictions on the type of luminous material that could be used. The 1965 example may hold true for earlier years as to split of the USA:rest of world market shares.

So if in general for most of the world there are no restrictions on your lumi material  until after 1963 Rome treaty implementation deadline,  which represents the major part of your sales why mark your some or all of the rest of world dials..

You might  want to mark the USA dials, one to show conformance to the standard if the material is tritium and secondly especially bearing in mind that the USA suffered from duty free sales thru the backdoor from the 60's onwards i.e. non Rolex USA imported watches. If I was Rolex USA I'd be pissed off by that loss of profits and just by way of interest from when did they start to restrict importation with copyright infringement of Rolex watches into the USA. it would make it terribly visible if eg only the USA dials were marked at this time

Just a passing thought

kind regards

All the best

John

 

Apologies for the amendments, spelling and presentation errors.
Last edited by fatboyharris on January 25th, 2012, 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 19th, 2010, 3:41 am

January 25th, 2012, 1:45 am #3

a dial comparison : 3 " mk2 " dials for 5512 .....
1) mk2 chronometer dial with underline ;
2) mk2 two lines ( without und. or ex.pt ) ; this very faded dial belongs to an italian friend of mine and , believe me or not , I know it very well and
I can well promise you that indexes and hands are not red-done and certainly not made with radium.
3) mk2 dial with underline ; also this one is in Italy ( in Emilia-Romagna as the previous one )





( edit for typo ! )
Just a novice but watching intently......My question is, are there any of the three dial lumes posted that exhibit florescence when charged with bright light? I've been researching "Puffy" lume that briefly glows with a light source charge mfg'd in mid 1060's. looking at the 3 different examples I would say #3 would hold a bit of charge.

Given that from 1964-1967 many models have shown a lume mix (mostly puffies) that still have a charge left in them, could there be a correlation durring the overlapping time frames of this lume mix and underline or exclamation point?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 22nd, 2010, 11:46 pm

January 25th, 2012, 2:30 am #4

With all due respect, I would ask  what year are the watches, what market were they sold in and how are we certain its not radium and what is it then if it isn't.

I'm not suggesting these watches are from 1965 but by way of example just to illustrate the size of the US market in 1965 compared with the rest of the world combined markets, as this is from an unimpeachable source as per Mr Myers only 100 to 300 watches a week were being imported by Rolex into the USA say maximum of 15000 watches a year. So for 1965 as an example the other approximately 120,000 watches were going to other markets which until the 1963 Rome convention came into force (some time later)  generally had absolutely no restrictions on the type of luminous material that could be used. The 1965 example may hold true for earlier years as to split of the USA:rest of world market shares.

So if in general for most of the world there are no restrictions on your lumi material  until after 1963 Rome treaty implementation deadline,  which represents the major part of your sales why mark your some or all of the rest of world dials..

You might  want to mark the USA dials, one to show conformance to the standard if the material is tritium and secondly especially bearing in mind that the USA suffered from duty free sales thru the backdoor from the 60's onwards i.e. non Rolex USA imported watches. If I was Rolex USA I'd be pissed off by that loss of profits and just by way of interest from when did they start to restrict importation with copyright infringement of Rolex watches into the USA. it would make it terribly visible if eg only the USA dials were marked at this time

Just a passing thought

kind regards

All the best

John

 

Apologies for the amendments, spelling and presentation errors.
If this theory could be verified with
Dealer stamps on Original watches with
Guarantee papers like these, it might
substantiate the theory.

Linked from Rolex Ephemera

Linked from Rolex Ephemera
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 9th, 2004, 2:59 pm

January 25th, 2012, 9:09 am #5


Its a good starting position to examine paperwork, but even with documentation some of it been faked there are some many blanks around that are now tied to watches and  I would suggest its been going on for years, dials may have been swopped. So we may have reliability issues unless we find lots of original fully papered first owner watches.

 I'm sure that we will find exceptions to the norm in every theory as I believe things were more relaxed back then compared with today, product liability was in its infancy.....remember the Army officer who sued Rolex USA over radiation exposure from the GMT bezel. Records were hand written or typed therefore potentially more prone to error etc.

The only certain way to tell IMHO is test the lumi material in a lab.

regards

 

John
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 13th, 2003, 5:24 pm

January 25th, 2012, 2:02 pm #6

a dial comparison : 3 " mk2 " dials for 5512 .....
1) mk2 chronometer dial with underline ;
2) mk2 two lines ( without und. or ex.pt ) ; this very faded dial belongs to an italian friend of mine and , believe me or not , I know it very well and
I can well promise you that indexes and hands are not red-done and certainly not made with radium.
3) mk2 dial with underline ; also this one is in Italy ( in Emilia-Romagna as the previous one )





( edit for typo ! )
three dial comparison of underline, no underline and only lum dot..

I believe these examples fortify our premise that same year dials using the underline dial theory to hold water, must be consistent on all dials for those years.

But you have demonstrated that inconsistency is apparent in that theory. Again the underline in my opinion is not related to radium tritium theory.

Well done, Arthur



http://rolexnessreviews.blogspot.com/
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 13th, 2003, 5:24 pm

January 25th, 2012, 2:21 pm #7

Its a good starting position to examine paperwork, but even with documentation some of it been faked there are some many blanks around that are now tied to watches and  I would suggest its been going on for years, dials may have been swopped. So we may have reliability issues unless we find lots of original fully papered first owner watches.

 I'm sure that we will find exceptions to the norm in every theory as I believe things were more relaxed back then compared with today, product liability was in its infancy.....remember the Army officer who sued Rolex USA over radiation exposure from the GMT bezel. Records were hand written or typed therefore potentially more prone to error etc.

The only certain way to tell IMHO is test the lumi material in a lab.

regards

 

John
All the dials shown above in Marcello Pisani's post are from the so called sweet spot years of 1961-64. So why do we have different variation of the same dials?

The underline or lum dot theory put forth should hold true on all the same dial years.

The dials with the same design should all be had with an underline and lum dot at the "6".. But we see some dials with no lum dot nor underline. This leads me to believe that the lum dot and underline is not luminous material related.

Again these 5513's and 1675's below are all within the 1961-64 so called sweet spot. I am being redundant with the same pictures from my collection..but it does prove a good point..
Arthur





Arthur

http://rolexnessreviews.blogspot.com/
Last edited by aakviper on January 25th, 2012, 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 7th, 2006, 5:02 pm

January 25th, 2012, 2:29 pm #8

three dial comparison of underline, no underline and only lum dot..

I believe these examples fortify our premise that same year dials using the underline dial theory to hold water, must be consistent on all dials for those years.

But you have demonstrated that inconsistency is apparent in that theory. Again the underline in my opinion is not related to radium tritium theory.

Well done, Arthur



http://rolexnessreviews.blogspot.com/
The dials are from the same batch originally but we can find this dial font for at least a few years, say 1961-62, maybe even early 63. And we know that Rolex has added marks like the Underline to the dials after the dial has been printed. Likewise the SCOC text is printed ex post facto on top of the original dial surface and not part of the original printing process. And again, I think it is impossible to say if the Exclamation Point has not fallen off on the 2 without it.

So I'm not sure what you can conclude from these non-notated dials (no serial numbers, no caseback stamps) except that there was a lot of variation ("casino" I think is the Italian phrase) in the early 60s, especially on the 5512. And that Marcello likes being cryptic.
Best,
T.


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 13th, 2003, 5:24 pm

January 25th, 2012, 2:37 pm #9

If this theory could be verified with
Dealer stamps on Original watches with
Guarantee papers like these, it might
substantiate the theory.

Linked from Rolex Ephemera

Linked from Rolex Ephemera
the so called sweet spot years of 1961-64. The serial numbers on the case will verify the year of the watch..
Ergo, using the aforementioned 1961-64 years that the underline and lum dot at the "6" o'clock position were added to the dial, I think case serial numbers are the reference point in this case.

Arthur

http://rolexnessreviews.blogspot.com/
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 13th, 2003, 5:24 pm

January 25th, 2012, 3:14 pm #10

The dials are from the same batch originally but we can find this dial font for at least a few years, say 1961-62, maybe even early 63. And we know that Rolex has added marks like the Underline to the dials after the dial has been printed. Likewise the SCOC text is printed ex post facto on top of the original dial surface and not part of the original printing process. And again, I think it is impossible to say if the Exclamation Point has not fallen off on the 2 without it.

So I'm not sure what you can conclude from these non-notated dials (no serial numbers, no caseback stamps) except that there was a lot of variation ("casino" I think is the Italian phrase) in the early 60s, especially on the 5512. And that Marcello likes being cryptic.
Best,
T.

Besides..honestly the outer chapter ring Swiss 1675, 5513 or 5512 were produced in such a small manufacturing window and we all know the case serial number years.
Take my 5513's with high Swiss positioning with hash mark underline and non underline dial, it was a very limited window in which serial # case years it was placed in. So Tom, by logic we have a "tell" as to when these dials were constructed.

"Rolex has added marks like the Underline to the dials after the dial has been printed." Ok Tom, then by your statement all the dials regarding the same luminous issues from that manufacturing time period should have an added underline mark to them. But that is clearly not the case..I surmised that the inconsistency of the addition of the underline mark must have another meaning. Rolex by logic should have added the underline, let us say to all outer chapter ring Swiss 5513 dials to show all the altered luminous issues of that small specific manufacturing time period. Not just a random amount of after added mark to the same printed dials.

Arthur

http://rolexnessreviews.blogspot.com/
Last edited by aakviper on January 25th, 2012, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share