redsubmariner
47
Geneva restores PNs with new lume
Hi Philipp,
funny I am finding this post of you.
It appears to be common practice that Rolex restores vintage dials such as the PNs with new lume, as I recently met a good friend who had his watch in Geneva for an overhaul, and when it was returned, it was shining like a maglite in the dark. Soooo sad. I do not understand why Rolex has no interest in the watchcollector community and in their own heritage?
Cheers, Boris
Important publication; Rolex is showing their vintage.....
At new edition of leading german watchmagazine, Chronos. It appears that shown watches are those that are also on roadtrip and where lately seen at new Berlin Rolex boutique + are shown on their website...As it was not possible to photograph the vintage R...
Very interesting ! Good point concerning the lume...
I wonder to what extend the pictures have been touched up... Cheers Jeff This message has been edited by DrStrong on 2010-08-30 12:23:56
"touched up"...?!? you know how radium looks Jeff...
There's a big difference between a photoshoped picture showing all details of the real deal and one showing white lume on a radium dial as you know that radium always has patina after 50 years as we see in below 6204 of the same article.... So big questio...
Geneva restores PNs with new lume
Hi Philipp, funny I am finding this post of you. It appears to be common practice that Rolex restores vintage dials such as the PNs with new lume, as I recently met a good friend who had his watch in Geneva for an overhaul, and when it was returned, it wa...
Kinda sad state of affairs
You wonder to whom they targeted the article. They don't seem to not make every effort to showcase the genuine thing. You wonder under which direction this piece was assembled. Great opportunity to present the watches but the curating has failed a miserab...
There are also 2 interesting dates.
1954 for the Submariner, while I thought it was '53... 1955 for the GMT ( 6542 ) while I thought it was introduced at the Basel Fair, in 1954. ( BUT, it seems that nobody saw a '54 6542 ). Interesting... Best, Nicolas.