When good service means knowing what not to change

There are watches for which servicing is primarily a technical process. And there are others for which every decision made by the watchmaker can affect not only their function, but also their historical and collectible value.

A 1968 Rolex Submariner, ref. 5513, undoubtedly belongs to the second category.

This particular watch was recently brought to our workshop for a complete service. More than half a century after it was manufactured, it still retains one of the features that make early 5513 models particularly interesting to collectors: the distinctive matte “Meters First” dial, with the depth scale marked as:

200 m = 660 ft

and not as 660 ft = 200 m, as was the case in later editions.

A seemingly insignificant change in the sequence of two units of measurement is now of enormous importance to those involved in vintage Rolex watches.

And this is where the real story of this watch begins.

Because when you open up a Submariner that's nearly 60 years old, your job isn't to make it look brand-new.

The goal is to make it work properly without taking away what made it old.

The 5513 and the Submariner design as we know it

Rolex introduced the Submariner ref. 5513 in 1962 and kept it in production until 1989—an exceptionally long period for a single model. This is one of the reasons why the 5513 has come to represent almost a small chapter in the history of the Submariner all on its own.

Alongside this was the Ref. 5512. Externally, the two models were nearly identical, but the 5512 was developed as the chronometer-certified version, while the 5513 used movements without that certification.

However, this also had a particularly beautiful aesthetic consequence.

The classic 5513 models feature the simple two-line dial: below the center are only the depth indicator and the word “SUBMARINER.” With no date, no magnifying lenses, and no additional lines for chronometer certification, the result is one of the cleanest dials ever seen on a Submariner.

The 5513 went through many different generations of dials. The first 5513 models had glossy gilt dials. In the mid-1960s, matte dials with white printing appeared, while much later, glossy dials with hour markers surrounded by white gold were introduced.

And somewhere in the midst of this transitional period lies our own clock.

“200m = 660ft”: two numbers that say a lot

Looking at the dial in the photos, the eye of an untrained observer will likely be drawn to the beautiful yellowish patina of the tritium.

The collector, however, will immediately look a little lower:

200 m = 660 ft

This is the famous " Meters First" provision.

On early Submariner models, Rolex first listed the maximum water resistance in meters and then in feet. Later, the order was reversed to 660 ft = 200 m, creating what collectors call “Feet First.”

Hodinkee typically dates the matte Meters First 5513 models to around 1967–1969—that is, precisely the time frame in which a 1968 5513 falls.

Sotheby’s also notes that the “Meters First” matte dials first appeared in the mid-1960s and that there was a transitional period toward the “Feet First” dials around the end of the decade.

It is often claimed that the change was made so that Rolex could better adapt the Submariner to the American market, where feet were the customary unit of measurement. It is a plausible hypothesis, but not a documented historical fact: there is no known official statement from Rolex confirming this motive.

What we do know is that today this difference has become a collector's item.

And not because the Meters First was technically superior, but because the dial is a chronological snapshot of a specific production period.

The dial of this particular 5513

We can clearly see that the matte black surface of the dial has the characteristic grainy texture of that era; the white lettering remains crisp, and at the bottom we can make out:

SWISS – T < 25

This indication suggests the use of tritium as a phosphorescent material.

Over the decades, the hour markers have taken on a uniform, warm, yellowish hue. What was once a purely functional material has now become a lifeless, non-luminescent element, yet it remains one of the watch’s key visual features.

And this is where the first major dilemma arises: should it be replaced?

Personally, I don't think there's any reason why a watch from 1968 should look like it was made in 2026.

A patina on the dial is not necessarily a defect. When it is natural and stable, it is part of the watch’s history.

A new dial with Luminova may still be an authentic Rolex replacement part. However, this does not make it an authentic component of that specific watch.

And these are two completely different concepts that I will try to analyze below.

Original, genuine, and period-correct—What are the key differences?

This is perhaps one of the most significant distinctions in the world of vintage watches.

A replacement part may be a genuine Rolex, but it may have been installed decades after the watch was manufactured.

It may be period-correct—that is, a replacement part compatible with that specific era—without being the part that came with the watch when it left the factory.

And finally, there's the original component: the actual part that has aged along with the watch.

For the collector, these differences matter.

A brand-new dial, a new bezel, a new set of hands, or an excessively polished case can create a watch that looks more beautiful by conventional standards.

But at the same time, they can create a watch that is less appealing to collectors.

Under the dial: Rolex Caliber 1520

The second part of the story is revealed when the dial is removed.

Inside this particular 5513 is the Rolex Caliber 1520, the automatic movement that has become closely associated with this reference and is part of the model’s identity.

The photos from the service center show the mechanism at various stages of disassembly, up to the point where the wheel system and the escape mechanism are revealed.

And this is precisely where the difference between maintenance and restoration lies.

The mechanism must be disassembled, cleaned, inspected for wear, properly lubricated, reassembled, and adjusted.

Mechanical wear is not "patina."

A worn-out shaft, a faulty spring, or a component that can no longer function properly does not preserve the watch’s history. Rather, it jeopardizes its operation.

In such cases, if necessary, replacement is justified.

However, this does not mean that every old part must be replaced simply because a newer one is available.

If a component can continue to function properly and safely, its age alone is not a reason to replace it.

The Frame and the Glazing

The photos of the house also show something that is often overlooked.

Its lines, lugs, surfaces, and even the signs of wear are all part of the watch's life.

Polishing is an irreversible process. Material is removed each time.

Aggressive refinishing can round off the edges, alter the geometry of the lugs, and ultimately result in a very shiny but less authentic case.

When it comes to a collectible vintage Rolex, the question should therefore not be:

"Can we make it look new?"

but:

"Is there a real reason for us to intervene?"

If the answer is no, then often the best course of action is to do nothing.

And finally, the point!

This particular Rolex was brought to our workshop for servicing.

Not so that his story can be rewritten.

The Calibre 1520 required the care that a movement of this age demands. Its water resistance had to be tested. Every functional component had to be evaluated.

But the dial didn't need to be replaced.

The patina didn't have to disappear.

The case didn't need to lose any material just to make it shine brighter.

And the parts that have survived from 1968 to the present don’t need to be replaced just because we happen to have a modern replacement part in our drawer.

For us, this is the essence of maintaining an important vintage watch!