Tudor ranger 9050/0: what movement ref. inside? (nt)

Vintage Rolex Discussion

Tudor ranger 9050/0: what movement ref. inside? (nt)

Joined: October 21st, 2008, 8:48 am

October 25th, 2011, 9:27 am #1

.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 6th, 2008, 9:08 am

October 25th, 2011, 10:01 am #2

should be a "Prince Oysterdate" of which some have been converted with a Ranger dial/re-dial.
The ETA 2784 should be correct for the reference, but if you look for a genuine Ranger, you should look for the references mentioned here:
http://www.watchspot.net/tudormodelno.html

Bye,
Derk
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 21st, 2008, 8:48 am

October 25th, 2011, 10:19 am #3

.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 21st, 2007, 10:15 am

October 25th, 2011, 11:30 am #4

should be a "Prince Oysterdate" of which some have been converted with a Ranger dial/re-dial.
The ETA 2784 should be correct for the reference, but if you look for a genuine Ranger, you should look for the references mentioned here:
http://www.watchspot.net/tudormodelno.html

Bye,
Derk
for example here is mine (after 10 or so other pics)
http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/m ... 317040011/

If mine was converted using an original dial, hands and movement, why would they have done that? I would for starters have used a nicer case...
The table you refer to is just an opinion of someone, it is not Rolex/Tudor verified truth.
The 9050 was made as a normal watch as well, just like the 5500 Rolex series of Air King and Explorer...
And the same thing happens with the 5500 air kings, they are converted to explorers, but the real explorer 5500 dials are that rare, that they use fake dials for it. And that effect on the Tudor created the "red ranger".
So the 9050 is a correct reference, but not every 9050 Ranger is a correct one.
best,
Robbe
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 21st, 2008, 8:48 am

October 25th, 2011, 12:24 pm #5

.
.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 6th, 2005, 9:00 pm

October 25th, 2011, 1:52 pm #6

9050 should have a date.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 21st, 2008, 8:48 am

October 25th, 2011, 2:19 pm #7

.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 6th, 2008, 9:08 am

October 25th, 2011, 8:15 pm #8

for example here is mine (after 10 or so other pics)
http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/m ... 317040011/

If mine was converted using an original dial, hands and movement, why would they have done that? I would for starters have used a nicer case...
The table you refer to is just an opinion of someone, it is not Rolex/Tudor verified truth.
The 9050 was made as a normal watch as well, just like the 5500 Rolex series of Air King and Explorer...
And the same thing happens with the 5500 air kings, they are converted to explorers, but the real explorer 5500 dials are that rare, that they use fake dials for it. And that effect on the Tudor created the "red ranger".
So the 9050 is a correct reference, but not every 9050 Ranger is a correct one.
best,
Robbe
look to the table, but also to old catalogs and the mentioned references there.
From Tudor I don't have as many as Rolex but I definitely lack one mentioning 9050 as Ranger

Regards,
Derk
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 21st, 2007, 10:15 am

October 26th, 2011, 6:51 am #9

Be careful with spreading your opinion if you yourself even admit that you do not have all info.
You are dismissing my watch and others at least as "not the correct reference for a ranger", which means non-correct , which is ridiculous. Have you seen my watch? Have you seen Tom's watch? Have you seen mr Dowlings watches? All not correct you think?

Just because YOU do not know, it does not mean that it is not correct.
Mine came in a very sorry state to me, covered under lots of dirt of 40 years of wear and tear. No way that it is a fake/ alteration, and I would appreciate it if you would correct your posting to a bit more open minded one.
I know that I do not know everything, and you do not see me posting about DRSD mark I's, because I simply do not have all info or own the watch.
If however I had a very original DRSD mark I , and there was a discussion going on about mark I's , then I would give my opinion as well. But without the watch or all info available, I would not declare some DRSD's as incorrect.
Robbe
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 6th, 2008, 9:08 am

October 26th, 2011, 8:05 am #10

to declare all the 9050 Rangers as incorrect, especially as in the "older times" the same reference even on Rolex was used for marketing different models.
For me there is just the final proof missing in form of any kind of marketing material offering 9050 as Ranger.

But as the most if not all faked Rangers are 9050s for a starter it's better to hunt after the other references of known Rangers which are not or seldomly faked.

I also own a 9050 Ranger, a red one, but I know - even having a confirmation of an AD that's a genuine piece - that it's not. It was an early buy and at the price of a regular Oysterprince. Also in this case it wasn't giving any money to the faker as there was no price difference.

And some alterations may also have been performed by authorized dealers, e.g. after water damage quite early in time just using a different set of dial/hands fitting to the movement.
My collection starter impulse was a 6610 having only one service marking in the caseback. Nevertheless it had a late 60s replacement dial and under the microscopy you could even see minimal rust crystals on the dial, so it had a water damage decades before I bought it and was untouched after fixing this...

As I like the Explorer I and the Ranger layout I would like to buy an genuine Ranger (not at the moment as I just bought too much) and if I got offered a "dirt incrusted" 9050 I most probaby would go for it, but wouln'd feel 100% safe

Bye,
Derk
Quote
Like
Share