Bill
31176
Where is the Rolex Comex 5513 HEV in the conversation.
Rolex submitted patent number CH-A-492 246 on 11/ 1967 (see document attached). That much we know. We also know that Rolex fitted the 5513 with HEV which is the earliest “Comex ” clean dial i.e. no Comex on the dial. The Rolex Submariner 5513 HEV appears to have been produced in a batch(sequential numbers) of +/- 200 units. The first run was with the Comex case back and small number inscription on the back with a clean dial. All of this seems to have occurred around 1969/1970 as the casebacks are 1.70. This would add to the conversation of which watches received the HEV for testing. The serial range speaks for itself (PP 1.7 mil?) but what is the story with the PPDRSD that seems to have a range 1.7 to 2.2 which goes contrary to Marcello Pisani theory that the MK1 PPDRSD was produced in a batch and as such should have one serial number range. Can we assume that the “Prototype” batch had the 1.7 mil case and some found their way into the market and the production for the public carry the 2.1. I have heard such stories but I have no idea. By contrast the first Comex 5513 HEV had a 2.8 mil serial range exclusively . Could Rolex have reserved a batch of cases for the PPDRSD and assembled them at a later date let’s say 1971 for example.

By 1972 we do start to see the 1665 come into the market but the
5513 first batch where all only issued as “Comex Prototype”. I know we
hate the word prototype when we have batches of several hundred units
being produced. So I will close by using a different term “not sold
to the public” and for commercial and research purposes only. The early
Comex 5513 HEV is equally important to consider the Rolex HEV history.


Nicolas.....
By: Baron - Mr Red : December 8th, 2014-06:39
.....i suspect the answer to your question could be any number of possibilities. Firstly, my documentation shows that Rolex were lending a watch to a diver for testing in June 1971. The Sea-Dweller was, I believe, officially launched in 1971. The Mk1 lent...
Marcello....
By: Baron - Mr Red : December 8th, 2014-10:22
. ....first thanks for your assistance with my article. Yes, the issue of Comex is certainly clearer now. Differentiating between using Comex exclusively and alongside other dive companies and private divers now seems much clearer. OK...on the issue of "p...
Bill.....
By: Baron - Mr Red : December 9th, 2014-01:13
The Mk1 Patent Pendings occur within a very narrow serial range...one batch starting 1.7 and another batch starting 2.2. I have owned Mk1s in each of the two batches. I will answer one part of your question and that is that I have had Rolex-to-Diver watch...
Bill....
By: Baron - Mr Red : December 9th, 2014-10:37
regarding the Mk2 Patent pending with 2.2 serial....why do you think it did not have a patent pending case back? If that was the case, what would differentiate it from a Mk2 that was not a patent pending? My Mk2 Patent Pending has Patent Pending on case b...
Yep....
By: Baron - Mr Red : December 10th, 2014-02:36
......this is my point too. Just one swallow a summer does not make. We have essentially 10 times as many examples coming direct from divers as direct from ADs (albeit there can be some crossover as Marcello highlighted). Mk1 is a prototype in my book.
GREAT WRITE UP!!!
By: daytonaman799 : December 10th, 2014-18:20
This was a great write up! Fantastic piece of history and a great summary of it. Joe you just have a great handle on vintage Rolex and especially the tool watch end of the spectrum. Thanks for sharing both images of your collection and your knowledge of t...