^^^That's good to hear! Enjoy it.

Off to the garden with Blue Mako dans le style de film noir...

blowfish89 wrote:I saw this watch in the wild today. Guy said he inherited it and it's from 1968 but I am not familiar with anything like this - maybe a redial, or a franken or a reference I don't know ?
Note the lack of crown guards.

I'm not at all knowledgable about the arcane minutae surrounding Rolex dials, but I think I'm correct in stating that Rolex did not start using the metal lume surrounds until the mid 80's, so that dial would appear incorrect for a 1968 vintage, so it's probably a service re-dial at best, which is common enough - a lot of owners back then would not have deemed these watches as anything more than tools and placed little importance on originality, and Rolex themselves often demonstrated parts inconsistency.

Though, I thought that the red triangle bezel inserts were made much earlier than1968, and I'm also a little sceptical about the dial having so many lines of print, nor did I think the famed 'double red' Submariners had red font on the 'Chronometer' line.

It's an utter minefield of an area, and not one I have any expertise in, so I'm reluctant to cast aspersions upon the guy's watch, but it doesn't look quite 'right' to me.

Tudor today



Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

I've worn this lovely watch since it arrived on Friday:

Bank Holiday photobomb

she's obviously impressed with the hardiness of a Sinn.

TG3N wrote:

blowfish89 wrote:I saw this watch in the wild today. Guy said he inherited it and it's from 1968 but I am not familiar with anything like this - maybe a redial, or a franken or a reference I don't know ?
Note the lack of crown guards.

I'm not at all knowledgable about the arcane minutae surrounding Rolex dials, but I think I'm correct in stating that Rolex did not start using the metal lume surrounds until the mid 80's, so that dial would appear incorrect for a 1968 vintage, so it's probably a service re-dial at best, which is common enough - a lot of owners back then would not have deemed these watches as anything more than tools and placed little importance on originality, and Rolex themselves often demonstrated parts inconsistency.

Though, I thought that the red triangle bezel inserts were made much earlier than1968, and I'm also a little sceptical about the dial having so many lines of print, nor did I think the famed 'double red' Submariners had red font on the 'Chronometer' line.

It's an utter minefield of an area, and not one I have any expertise in, so I'm reluctant to cast aspersions upon the guy's watch, but it doesn't look quite 'right' to me.

It doesn't look right to me either . The watch pictured looks nothing like the double red ref 1665 . If you google for the double red 1665 Om , you will see the differences for yourself .

tempusmaximus wrote:

TG3N wrote:

blowfish89 wrote:I saw this watch in the wild today. Guy said he inherited it and it's from 1968 but I am not familiar with anything like this - maybe a redial, or a franken or a reference I don't know ?
Note the lack of crown guards.

I'm not at all knowledgable about the arcane minutae surrounding Rolex dials, but I think I'm correct in stating that Rolex did not start using the metal lume surrounds until the mid 80's, so that dial would appear incorrect for a 1968 vintage, so it's probably a service re-dial at best, which is common enough - a lot of owners back then would not have deemed these watches as anything more than tools and placed little importance on originality, and Rolex themselves often demonstrated parts inconsistency.

Though, I thought that the red triangle bezel inserts were made much earlier than1968, and I'm also a little sceptical about the dial having so many lines of print, nor did I think the famed 'double red' Submariners had red font on the 'Chronometer' line.

It's an utter minefield of an area, and not one I have any expertise in, so I'm reluctant to cast aspersions upon the guy's watch, but it doesn't look quite 'right' to me.

It doesn't look right to me either . The watch pictured looks nothing like the double red ref 1665 . If you google for the double red 1665 Om , you will see the differences for yourself .

I think the fact that the whole thing is shiny gives something away. Yuk!

^^I am inclined to agree. Back to our regular programming

This now.
Dave