Any comment on this faded insert ? Help needed ! Thanks !~October 30 2014 at 2:56 PM
|Justin (Login justinemotion)|
from IP address 188.8.131.52
would like to know is this insert genuine? How much should it worths ?
Help very welcome!
Thanks in advance,
|October 30 2014, 6:11 PM |
Looks nice - can it clean up a little? Is there a film on it - would like to see photo in natural light.
Nice fatter MK3 insert - price: certainly north of $500
mk1 "kissing 40"
|October 30 2014, 6:32 PM |
Very nice, worth over 1000$ I'd say.
|October 31 2014, 10:06 AM |
I always have trouble on the very, very fat MK3 inserts whether or not they may be in fact MK1 inserts - would you feel that the first 2 on this list are in fact just really fat MK3 inserts?
Re: Kissing 40
|October 31 2014, 6:19 PM |
The first two on the left are both mk1's.. You have it all labelled correctly. When I'm not sure (because the font of the 40's are extremely similar with mk1's and 3's) I look at the 50, it's always distinct enough to tell the diff.
|October 31 2014, 6:30 PM |
Here is the 50s - thank you
Great info and pics, thanks for sharing. But...
|November 1 2014, 5:58 PM |
Can someone tell us the date ranges that are appropriate/usual for each Mk?
Anybody have insight into date ranges for different Mks?
|November 5 2014, 10:08 AM |
Re: Anybody have insight into date ranges for different Mks?
|November 5 2014, 11:21 AM |
The thing is it's all a bit muddled, what we call mk2 "long 5" was the first to be introduced after the long 5 inserts with the red triangles ended. So technically they would be the first, after those, the ones we call mk1 "kissing 40" were introduced (early to mid 60's). Mk3's came later and had a few subtypes. There are examples of each that appear thicker and have less harsh "rounder" features due to pad wear. The exact timeline for each is confusing and not really important in my opinion, if you have an early 60's sub, any mk1 or mk2 will do and is appropriate.
Glenn M wrote this a little while ago, (I can only disagree with the part about the "kissing 40 mk1" comment at the end, there def was an mk1 kissing 40 in the early to mid 60's that is distinguishable and not a result of worn mk3 pads.. So I would put mk1 kissing 40 inserts between the mk2 long 5 and the mk3's of which we see three variations I believe.)
I started one of the threads above with the same question. My take away from that thread after input from the more knowledgeable Italian collectors is the following in terms of chronology for inserts from crown guarded plastic subs :
(not calling out Mk numbers, because there seems to be confusion) in chronological order of fonts :
1- 1959 - "square font" red triangle insert. only on 5512 square guards or eagle beak subs and tudor 7928 of the same era
2- long 5 insert - earliest font without the red triangle
3- "skinny 4" insert - late 62 and 1963 only
4- More long 5 insert variations through mid 1960s
5- what I called "hooked 5" or serifed font insert ( similar fonts found on mil-sub inserts)
6- fat font inserts without the serifs without" a long 5"
7- "flat four" / service inserts
My understanding is that the "kissing 4" or super fat font inserts can be in any font, that they are just a result of printing done with worn printing pads, causing the fonts to bleed out. I have seen super fat font "kissing 4" inserts with both a serif font and a long 5 after looking closer.
Let's see what the experts say..
Im too lazy to upload photos right now.. lets see where the thread goes and I can add some later
(edit for spelling)
… indeed in my opinion the long 5 should be called Mk1 ...
|November 5 2014, 12:55 PM |
… in any old official pic or in any old rolex catalog You won't find anything except long5s from early 5512 models till almost all of the 60s, so I've never understood why long5 is called mk2 …
About mk1 inserts consider that features are hardly visible and clear when numbers have grown and blown due to time and use, so I wonder if You can imagine what an mk3 insert could looks like if grown and blown …
Edit for typo
|This message has been edited by Fabrizio-it from IP address 184.108.40.206 on Nov 5, 2014 12:59 PM|
Re: … indeed in my opinion the long 5 should be called Mk1 ...
|November 5 2014, 3:41 PM |
Fabrizio, thanks for the response, it made me spend the afternoon comparing inserts to try to get to the bottom of this. I have a long 5 insert that was made with a worn pad, when I compare it to a normal long 5 it's obvious to see that all the edges have become rounded and less sharp slightly larger too. The same can be seen when comparing an mk3 insert to an mk1, it wasn't obvious right away but the more I look the more I think that Glenn, Marcello and others may have been right. It's tough to change the name or nickname for something in our community, we have been calling them by their mk names for years. It's a little strange though if an mk1 is really just an mk3 who's pad was worn.
Mk2 and mk2 worn pad version
Mk3 and 1
The long 5 should have been called mk1 and its worn pad brother, "mk1 kissing 40"
And the current mk3 should have been called mk2 and its worn pad brother, "mk2 kissing 40"
I think that would have been more appropriate considering
|This message has been edited by adamtl from IP address 220.127.116.11 on Nov 5, 2014 3:54 PM|
|Robby, ccrolex at hotmail dot com|
Thanks everyone for pics and info...
|November 5 2014, 8:18 PM |
|March 5 2015, 6:44 AM |
Does this explain why my '61 5512 sub has a "long 5" and a "kissing 4", a worn printing pad?
The inside of the four, (top of the triangle if you will) seems very sharp/pointed (relatively speaking), as do all the numbers on my insert.
It would seem if it was a worn pad, the point of the triangle inside the four would be much less defined?
Also that the long 5 would not be as defined with a worn pad, similar to the example in one of the pics (the long five no longer looking like a long 5)?
Having said this, I am only looking at them with a 30x loupe.
A curiosity; some numbers could be smudged due to worn pad and others seemingly very crisp?
Are each number "printed" on the inserts separately? (I would assume not, but don't want to assume).
Re: Any comment on this faded insert ? Help needed ! Thanks !~
|November 6 2014, 7:12 AM |
Thanks for everybody's help, appreciate that ! =)
Kissing 40, flat top 3, crooked 3 marker, short 2 hook, saggy 10, but despite that still
|November 6 2014, 7:32 AM |
worth a lot of money I think.
Sorry, but the names and descriptions are getting a bit out of control lately
Looks just like one I've had recently, you can see a gap ....
|March 5 2015, 9:42 AM |
...between the 4 and 0, the one I had went the same colour and I was told it was a fat mark 3 but to me that makes no sense as I took it from a 1966 watch that had not been serviced, I've had watches dated 69 with kissing 40's and they get called mark 1's and early 60's watches with long 5's I would say mark 2's are mark 1's!!