REVOLUTION_International_Vol 54

vintage expert to have it authenticated and serviced. While the watch
featured the correct 1.60 caseback, when I sent it to the famous watch
restorer Bob Ridley, who’s based in Texas, he informed me that the case
had been tampered with and that, as a result, a normal crystal would not
sit properly in it. This transpired when I was well into the costly service.
His exact description was that it appeared that someone had forced
the area where the crystal sits into and the bezel sits on top marginally
wider. As such, he could not guarantee the watch’s water resistance as
the tolerances in this area were altered.
When I informed J about this issue, he initially seemed perplexed;
then, to his credit, he quickly agreed to find me another watch. Giving
him the benefit of the doubt, I agreed, and he soon found a second
watch with an attractive fuchsia colored bezel insert and a caseback
from 1961. I would later discover that these bezels were for watches
that only appeared from 1965 onwards, as my friend Paul Boutros from
Phillips explained. When I questioned him about this discrepancy, J
replied, “Oh they were all over the place back then.”
Now, in the last decade, one of the great benefits of the Internet
is the rapid proliferation of information that is shared, analyzed then
amalgamated, which results in a universally recognized record. And
without sites such as Vintage Rolex Forum, individuals such as Eric Ku
and Aurel Bacs, or entities like Phillips, the world of Rolex information
would still be in miasmic disarray, which allows individuals to claim to
be authorities when they are not. This is simply because Rolex doesn’t
share any information with the public and does not opine on any of its
watches in any way. As a result we now know the statement, “They were
all over the place,” regarding the date stamping of the 1675 OCC, to
be inaccurate. They are specifically date stamped “1.60” with some
watches also having “II.59” stamps. If you ask why “III.59” and
“IV.59” could not exist with this dial, it is because of the way these
watches were manufactured in batches. As a result, it became clear that
the fuchsia bezel GMT OCC PCG watch in my collection was a very
attractive Frankenwatch, but one that had not been done correctly,
respecting the appropriate serial numbers and date codes. Had the
numbers at least aligned, I would have been less upset. The thing to
understand also was that, in the context of 2008 when I bought the
watch, J was regarded as an authority in the world of vintage Rolex, and
I thought, “Who am I to question such an august individual?”
REMAKING THE 1675 OCC
As time passed and the number of watches in my collection grew, I
tended to forget about the GMT. Occasionally I would notice it at the
back of my watch box, and I would take it out and wear it. On one level
I tried to convince myself to let its fundamental incorrectness slide.
After all, the watch was attractive. But, at the same time, the fact that I
knew in my heart that it was wrong continued to gnaw at me for over a
decade. And for someone who’s stricken with obsessive-compulsive
tendencies as I am, each time I wore it I would be consumed with an
impotent rage and I’d have to take it off and put it down as if it had
somehow conspired with the man who sold it to me to affront me
with its inchoate mendacity. Finally, I couldn’t take it anymore and
requested to meet with J just before the party to celebrate the 10th
The side profile of
the 1675 here shows
how after polishing,
thelugholesarenot
equally spaced with
the bevelled edges.
144 VINTAGE