1965 Ladies Rolex Date - Sympathetic Restoration

Hi All.

I am pretty new to watches, but bought my wife a 1965 Rolex Date for our wedding anniversary. She likes the watch, but it does require some sympathetic restoration. Can anyone recommend where i might be able to get this done. The strap needs to be resized and the whole watch overhauled, cleaned and serviced. It is approaching 50 years old, so we would like to keep some of the patina.

On a connected note - We noted that the dial does not state Swiss made, but TO (my eyes are not as good as they once were!). What does this mean?
Also the crown is not original Rolex - can anyone replace this for me and also the strap is stretched with age.

I am sure that there must be capable individuals on this very forum.....

I am happy to use anyone highly recommended.

Thanks in advance.

Pictures of the watch would help to provide suitable advice.

I hope these help - Many thanks to the seller for the use of the photos.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6bf1128b_k.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6528d882_k.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c05ce779_k.jpg

Looks like a moisture damaged sigma dial ( OT SWISS TO). If you didn’t know of these issues prior to purchase I would suggest returning it if that is an option as you don’t know what it may need at service.

Also what’s happened to the lug at 11 o’clock? Looking like it’s took a whack and someone has tried (failed) to tidy it up. May well require some laser welding to rebuild it back up to a serviceable level

Return it if you can


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks - I have asked if i can return and will see what the seller suggests.

I also called a couple of watch repair places from Google to see if they can help - I have been told that i must send the watch to them for analysis - at cost.

Can anyone on here help me with this?

I would say that’s a very,very bad example and should be returned forthwith.

The cost to return this into a wearable watch will be eye watering and I’m guessing you bought it because it was cheap. Nothing wrong with that as long as you know what is involved to bring it back to life.

It wont be £100s it will be £1000s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ben4watches

I would say that’s a very,very bad example and should be returned forthwith.

The cost to return this into a wearable watch will be eye watering and I’m guessing you bought it because it was cheap. Nothing wrong with that as long as you know what is involved to bring it back to life.

It wont be £100s it will be £1000s

---

+1. A point I’ve spotted is the excessive wear on one of the lugs where the springbar has worn into the case and elongated the hole. That point alone would be enough to put me off.

Never try to buy a cheap Rolex, it rarely ends well. OP doesn’t say where this was sourced or whether a refund is likely, hopefully he can get his money back.

Another vote for sending it back for all the reasons listed.

Thanks All. I have asked the seller if i can return, but no response as yet.
It was bought from this very forum and yes, I bought it as it seemed like a good deal - but it is worse than i anticipated.

I will keep you updated.

You have very good reason to be thoroughly disappointed. That's a disaster but don't let this experience put you off acquiring another very much better lady's Rolex.

Did you buy it on sc ? A cursory glance doesn't show anything. Other than that it looks beyond worthwhile repair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobc

Did you buy it on sc ? A cursory glance doesn't show anything. Other than that it looks beyond worthwhile repair.

---

It is listed on TZ UK SC. OP is an inexperienced watch buyer and likely did not realise the extent of the watch's shortcomings.

Look forward to hearing this experience has a happy ending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sundial

It is listed on TZ UK SC. OP is an inexperienced watch buyer and likely did not realise the extent of the watch's shortcomings.

---

Thanks, found it now. So a relative newbie bought from someone with a solid history of selling.

Yes, total newbie here and thought that the forum was a safe place to buy. I have asked around to see if we can at least make the watch saleable, although at significant cost to me.....

I spoke to Duncan at Genesis Watchmaking who helped me to find the serial number for the watch.

If the numbers are correct, the watch is very much older than the date stated in the original advert and Duncan has said that he cannot help as parts will be unobtainable. I am really worried now.

Edit - Original seller has come back to me and can speak on Sunday or thereafter.

I read the numbers under the lugs on the watch to Duncan:

At the 12 o’clock position
6516
At the 6 o’clock position
59358



He suggests that these are 1935 or earlier....

To be fair to the seller he did describe the watch as ropey in his advert and he’s hardly hiding anything with the images. It’s quite clearly in a pretty poor state!

I’m sure he’ll refund you. He sells lots of watches here (and presumably elsewhere) and has a good reputation by the looks of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray_Singh

I read the numbers under the lugs on the watch to Duncan:

At the 12 o’clock position
6516
At the 6 o’clock position
59358



He suggests that these are 1935 or earlier....

---

If your serial number is correct it's from 1956, confusingly when Rolex serial numbers reached 1,000,000 in 1953 they started again. Datejusts were first introduced in 1945. The advert states the serial number is 115938 which would be 1959.

Credit to the original seller - he will be in touch on his return from holiday on Sunday.

Hope you get it resolved, IMO that is too far gone to be "worth" restoration.

Must of come with a large portion of Chips that

Still struggling to get in touch with the seller.

Hope you get this resolved. It seems you were caught out because you are inexperienced, but the seller should accept the return IMO. It's a bit of a howler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldoakknives

Hope you get this resolved. It seems you were caught out because you are inexperienced, but the seller should accept the return IMO. It's a bit of a howler.

---

I'm not sure I agree. Yes it's a bit of a howler, but none of this was hidden in the sales post. The OP has even used the sellers pictures in this thread

Here's a snippet of the sales post -

"These are the downsides:

-it's a bit ropey (my wife and daughter think it's lovely, but I'm saying it's a bit ropey)
-the folded bracelet has some stretch
-the screw down crown is generic, not Rolex
-I don't have the service history"


If the seller does refund then that'd be a very nice gesture, but if he declines then I could also see his side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldoakknives

Hope you get this resolved. It seems you were caught out because you are inexperienced, but the seller should accept the return IMO. It's a bit of a howler.

---

'" ... bit of a howler" is a understatement — as is the description "a bit ropey".

Watch is in a shocking and likely non-restorable state.

And I doubt if any lady would ever consider it 'lovely'.

it's such obvious poor quality and the pics do not readily show the extent of the lug wear/damage - but which can be seen on very close examination.

And no movement picture?

Unlikely any regular / experienced TZ member would contemplate considering purchase.

And if seller has the gall to list it he should be prepared for others to give their opinion about its shortcomings and the way it's been described/photographed.

Listing left me feeling angry — and i'm still annoyed about it and sympathising with the inexperienced buyer who had no real idea of what he was buying.

Update to this and its a happy ending. The seller was honourable and has given me a refund and the watch was sent back via RM yesterday.

Lesson learn't.

Pleased to hear the good news. And hope you can now consider sourcing a much better lady's Rolex for your wife.

I've been slow to respond to this thread for two reasons.

Firstly I've been away on holiday without a laptop and was unaware of the thread for a while.

Secondly, as I anticipated in my advert Rolex watch sales often attract commentary, occasionally helpful but often ill-informed. In this instance the commentary has caused a great deal of anxiety and concern for the buyer of the watch.

I've returned from holiday now, contacted the buyer and agreed to take the watch back.

I wouldn't comment further but the last message in the thread in particular struck me as un-called for and unfair, so my response is below. I have no idea how to alter font etc so I've highlighted my replies with asterisks.

Best wishes,
Martyn.


Watch is in a shocking and likely non-restorable state.

***This is your opinion and I largely agree with it, but then of course my advert, which has clearly upset you never suggested anything different.

And I doubt if any lady would ever consider it 'lovely'.

***This is your opinion and is incorrect - as I said in my advert my wife and daughter think it lovely.***

it's such obvious poor quality and the pics do not readily show the extent of the lug wear/damage - but which can be seen on very close examination.

***This makes no sense.
1. Rolex - poor quality? I suspect you mean it’s worn out, knackered and can’t be made like new, in which case I agree with you, and my advert didn’t say otherwise.
2. You’re suggesting that the pics don't show the extent of wear, but then they do if you look closely? This is nonsense. The pics are reasonably clear, reasonably large resolution and are unedited.***

And no movement picture?

***True.***

Unlikely any regular / experienced TZ member would contemplate considering purchase.

***True again, unless they fancied an inexpensive ladies Rolex watch.***

And if seller has the gall to list it he should be prepared for others to give their opinion about its shortcomings and the way it's been described/photographed.

***Anyone who has been here for a while knows that if you list a Rolex for sale on the SC you have to anticipate comment; sometimes positive, often not. I forecast this in my advert, and also invited comment if anyone felt I had over-priced it. I think that I described and photographed it accurately. I made no attempt to hide its deficiencies.***

Listing left me feeling angry — and i'm still annoyed about it and sympathising with the inexperienced buyer who had no real idea of what he was buying.

***I share your sympathy with the inexperienced buyer and have taken the watch back. I can do nothing about your anger. I could make suggestions but suspect they would be misunderstood.***

I stand by my comments. The watch is rubbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sundial

I stand by my comments. The watch is rubbish.

---

Had its day is more accurate

If you fix the watch, please show us the result. It is nice to see that restoring works.


Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app

One comment left me bemused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sundial

And no movement picture?

---

There must be some Rolexes that have been sold on TZ that have had movement pictures displayed, but I can't think of any that come to mind (and I can't be bothered to search).

Having movement photographs would infer they are either ones supplied by a watchmaker who took photographs whilst the watch is open for whatever reason, or the seller has a set of caseback dies for a Rolex and has opened it up to take some photographs. The second option would certainly be a cause for concern for the average buyer!

IMHO the average seller of a Rolex on TZ simply wouldn't have movement photographs available to post on an advert.