Comments:
Joe- lets say even that your right (which your not). Lets say it was designed first- the 6200. But not released.
We are talking about DNA and perception. What counts is the public perception. And here its clear the 6204 was the first sub.
So you agree with me in a way. The small crown is the first sub and the sub is the DNA of Rolex. Surely that does not make
a SC a boxster.
Ofcourse I am biased. I love small crowns. But I also like big crowns - don't get me wrong. Yes your right I can better
argue when I own both of course.
In meantime lets find a better analogy. I also don't like the 928 one.
And I say it again. For me the 911 of Rolex is the 5512 and early 5513 - NOT the big crown.
I bet if we did a poll - I would get the response I am looking for.
best Edmond
Rolex Submariner 5508
I am posting this thread as I know, soon, Nicolas will have completed his 5508 by getting the correct insert. After many years.....indeed. In fact, it is in any case time to take another look at this non crown guard Submariner - a watch that so often gets overlooked in comparison to the Big Crowns and subsequent crown guard versions. I am in a lucky position in having found what I consider to be as nice a 5508 as I am inclined to find. Well, lets put it this way, next to Nicolas's 5508, I think we both feel indifferent as to which we would own.....both having their clear plus points.
Well, firstly lets start with the era of production.....1957-1961. Although the watch continued to appear for sale for many years after 1961, the production run was in fact quite short. Over this production run, the 5508 was produced using the Caliber 1530 and as can be seen from the picture above, with a glossy dial. Collectors have come to truly appreciate the attraction of the 1950s and 1960s glossy dials. They exude a richness which is hard to describe. More often than not, a gloss dial will have a flaw. Maybe it will be scratches around the centre where the hands revolve, or plausibly the lume will be imperfect. Sometimes, the mirror-like effect of the gloss has lost its lustre. There can many factors that affect the dial, for sure. In my view, Nicolas's 5508 has the most mirror-like finish of any 5508 I have seen. Mine is close to his, but not quite as brilliant. To my mind, having this gloss finish on a watch that is over 50 years old is one of its biggest positives. It really differentiates it....it has that overt vintage look but with a brilliant gloss dial finish......very sexy.
But in the way that is quite uniquely Rolex, the uncertainty and lack of clarity about the historical backdrop adds to the romance and mystery.
And on this shot above one also sees another of the little things that make the watch so attractive....the + crown. So often, the crown carries the - sign. It is not such a big deal, really, just nice to see these quirks.
This message has been edited by Baron on 2014-11-17 06:00:27 This message has been edited by Baron on 2014-12-01 02:05:25
First things first, lets have a look at the watch in action....what is it that provides the attraction of this watch?
Well, firstly lets start with the era of production.....1957-1961. Although the watch continued to appear for sale for many years after 1961, the production run was in fact quite short. Over this production run, the 5508 was produced using the Caliber 1530 and as can be seen from the picture above, with a glossy dial. Collectors have come to truly appreciate the attraction of the 1950s and 1960s glossy dials. They exude a richness which is hard to describe. More often than not, a gloss dial will have a flaw. Maybe it will be scratches around the centre where the hands revolve, or plausibly the lume will be imperfect. Sometimes, the mirror-like effect of the gloss has lost its lustre. There can many factors that affect the dial, for sure. In my view, Nicolas's 5508 has the most mirror-like finish of any 5508 I have seen. Mine is close to his, but not quite as brilliant. To my mind, having this gloss finish on a watch that is over 50 years old is one of its biggest positives. It really differentiates it....it has that overt vintage look but with a brilliant gloss dial finish......very sexy.
Now onto another factor that makes the watch interesting. 1957-1961....its an era that is beset with uncertainty for Rolex insofar as the period is one where the composition of the lume came under intense scrutiny. Radium was used, but after international law shifted, it became necessary to use another radioactive material. For a very brief period, and only on a very small batch of watches, Strontium was used. This was quickly changed. Tritium was brought into use. Just how quickly and how comprehensively this switch to tritium occurred is ALWAYS hotly debated amongst Rolex collectors. The use of special signifiers on the dial have been argued to point towards evidence of a switch having been made. For example, some argue that the appearance of an "underline" beneath the word "Submariner" was indicative of the fact that Rolex had changed the dial from one with Radium to the safer Tritium. Similarly, the "exclamation dot" right below the "6" is similarly argued to represent this switch. The honest answer is that nobody knows for certain. Some watches have underlines. Some have exclamation points. Some have nothing. I will also say that it is entirely possible that a dial has an exclamation point (indicating a switch to Tritium) yet STILL has Radium on the lume.....Rolex could be lazy and just not have bothered to switch, it being far easier (and cheaper) just to stick a small dot under the 6! (Picture is not of my watch)
But in the way that is quite uniquely Rolex, the uncertainty and lack of clarity about the historical backdrop adds to the romance and mystery.
The 5508 is also distinctly smaller than other Submariners, both in depth and width. Its smaller size creates a feel more of charm than power. The 6200, 5510 and 6538 Big Crowns are overtly powerful watches. I am not saying that these Big Crowns lack poise, but the small crown variants like the 5508 definitely seem to exude more refinement. The case of the 5508 is most definitely another, then, of its attractions. I love the case on my 5508. It is so incredibly crisp for a watch that is so old.
And on this shot above one also sees another of the little things that make the watch so attractive....the + crown. So often, the crown carries the - sign. It is not such a big deal, really, just nice to see these quirks.
I appreciate that there are many who adore these small crown Submariners. Yet, over the years, they have just not received the clamour that has been aroused by the Big Crowns. In fact, if one compares them against the early gilt crownguards of 5512 and 5513, collectors have tended to much prefer the latter. I have a small theory on why this may be the case. It is a theory with a twofold answer.
1) Pre-crownguard, one compares the 5508 with the 6538 and 6200. Small crown versus Big. Against the competition, it is truly hard to see how the small crown can win. The 6538 has the James Bond theme going for it, whilst the 6200 is the very first Big Crown (and plausibly the first Submariner on the Rolex design block) with the 3-6-9 Explorer dial. In this context, the small crown will always be the Boxter competing against the 911.
2) When Rolex designed the crownguard, it unwittingly came developed a design feature that would make its watches iconic. Yep, those crownguards are a big part of the Rolex DNA that have made Rolex an icon. Would you rather own the very first Submariner with crownguards, the 5512, or the 5508? Well, both came with glossy dials, but one has that unique Rolex DNA, and with it the associated power and strength of a Submariner. If you boil it down, when someone buys a Submariner, are they looking for power and strength or are they looking for poise and charm? The 5508 has a sporty look, for sure, but power and strength are to be found more overtly in other Submariners.
In many ways, however, it is wrong to compare the 5508 with either the Big Crowns or the Crownguard Submariners. One is comparing apples with pears. The watches are not really comparable. Rather, one should look at the 5508 as a watch that offers quite unique features for a Rolex...it is that individuality and how that brings something different to the vintage table that should be appreciated with this watch. Its sporty yet has that ability to exude charm and poise. It could easily look stunning at a black tie event....could a 5512 really do that so well?
Thank you Joe for a fantastic post.
I have also made my part today: I bought a (too expensive) vintage Rolex Submariner that I expect to get on Thursday. In fact I expect to get two Submariners on Thursday.
You guys with your posts and nice photos drive me nuts!
Best, Kari
Superb, really superb article, Joe.
It is a fact that the 5508 is not winning the comparison with the 5512 / 13, at least for the last years...
And I never got why the Small Crowns are less appreciated than the 5512 / 13.
Since my interest for your article.
I totally agree with you that the Small Crowns are perceived as a kind of Boxter, and that the Big Crowns are the 911.... Even though it is hard to be sure that the small crown was not born before the big crown... In that case, it may be the 911. 
If we compare the prodcution years, we may safely think that the small crowns are way much rarer than the 5512 / 13, even gilt. ( Gilt 5512 / 13 were in production from 1960 to 1966, no? ) While you have 4 references for the small crown ( the 5508 may be the less rare of them ).
By the way, one question: Are you sure that the 5508 was discontinued in 1961? My feeling was that it was discontinued in 1962, and if I remember well, Marcello once wrote that it was discontinued even a bit later....
I think that there is, currently, a hype for the 5512 / 13 Gilt. Maybe because of its bigger and thicker case?
I, for one, prefer the no crown guard Subs... Which doesn't mean that I cannot appreciate a very nice 5512 / 13 Gilt.
But I will always favour the no crownguard Subs... Which belonged to a bygone era.
Best, my friend.
Nicolas
5508 years of production......
.......my answer to your question is that I am not sure. Certainly, a number of reference books suggest 1961......however, i have seen so many cases with serial numbers that suggest 1962 and even 1963.......
....of course, it is plausible that actual production finished yet the watches remained on sale for many years.
1961 according to many reference books....1962/3 according to serial numbers.
Where is the Italian when you need him?
I saw some case back bearing 1962. None later. But at least 1962. Marcello? [nt]
No message body
Thanks, Marcelo. Did you see some with the year 1963 engraved in the case back? [nt]
No message body
I always double check the sn and the quartal and year.
And, of course, I don't count my efforts. 
Count Jaeger.
earliest 5508 seen ( at least by me .. )
have case number in the 361.000 range ( roughly 1st quarter of 1958 ) .
latest AFAIK with case number under 900.000.
seen also some " out of range " .. but questionable......
latest AFAIK with case number under 900.000.
seen also some " out of range " .. but questionable......
5512 gilt vrs 5508?
For me, I have lovely versions of both, but I would go 5512.
But I am especially attached to my 5512!
Nicolas- 100% with you on ALL points
I cannot remember the last time I agreed with you more.
E
Analogy is not fitting
Joe- first I enjoyed your post on the small crown 5508 very much. Not much is known about this reference. Your example is growing on me (indeed any 5508) as I much prefer the earlier small crowns namely the 6536-1 which have a much more 'gilt' dial and hands. Also a big congratulations on a small point BUT very important one. Your correct plus sign on the crown is a marvel. Very rare and correct- most are with the incorrect crown. The devil is in the details and you got the details here right.
Only one thing Joe. Your car analogy is a poor one. You cannot say a 5508 is boxster when a big crown is a Porsche 911. I think the DNA of any small crown is pure Rolex and thus your analogy does not make sense. A boxster carries no resemblance to a 911 and thus the comparison is a poor one. Rather it should be something like: A Small crown is a 911 1.8 L while a big crown is a 2.4L RS version. If you use the boxster analogy then I would argue a Tudor is the boxster where Rolex is the 911. That makes more sense to me as Tudor was a deliberate secondary line (and somewhat less expensive) to Rolex (the Tudor owners might not agree with me)
All best Edmond
Try to find a Tudor 7922 for the price of a 5508 or even 6536. ;) [nt]
No message body
Yep...i am with Nicolas on this....
.....the Tudor BC is in a different game to the 5508/6536...... it is a different beats altogether. They fight in different weight categories!!
I think we have been on boxing analogies before, eh?
BCs.....Ali, Tyson, Foreman.....
SCs.....Sugar Ray
Happy that you liked the +!!!
But I still feel that the small crowns are not in the same league as the BCs. OK, if the Boxter comparison is too harsh on the 5508, then maybe 911 vrs 928 is more apt. I know you have a deep love for the 6536 small crown...and the small crown generally. But to argue that the small crown is the 911 of the Subs just isn't credible!!!
I think they have a very different persona....and in that sense differentiate themselves from the 5512/5513 as well as BCs. Its a different game with the small crowns.
But very happy you picked up on the +crown.
Team effort
Lets try and come with a good analogy. Because your analogy is not good- for the following reasons.
1) The first Sub which you oftened have argued is the DNA of Rolex (the submariner being the core DNA of Rolex) was a small crown. 6204
2) The second sub was also a small crown - the 6205. I think first then came the big crowns 6200 etc.
3) The boxster analogy is too harsh.
4) So big crown Tudors are more expensive than a nice 6536-1. I will see if that is really true. I am sceptical
5) I think the small crowns are not necessary the 911s - but neither are the big crowns. I actually think the 5512 and 5513 might be better 911 analogy
than the big crowns. I still view big crowns as a 2.4L RS version.
Lets try and find a better analogy. Best Edmond
well...strictly speaking not true.....
....as my post on the subject argued that the 6200 was the first Submariner that Rolex designed ... but not the first that they released to the public. I continue to argue that the very first concept of Submariner was with the 6200.....it was just not released first.
Edmond, you also need to consider that your passion for the small crowns makes you a tiny bit bias.
ps...(you may say the same for me on 6200!)
pps....(but i own a 6200 AND a 5508, so i am being objective).
ppps...(when you get yourself a BC, then you can argue objectively...and I know you will get one...only then can you really compare)
This message has been edited by Baron on 2014-11-17 10:17:38
You agree with me then ;)
Joe- lets say even that your right (which your not). Lets say it was designed first- the 6200. But not released.
We are talking about DNA and perception. What counts is the public perception. And here its clear the 6204 was the first sub.
So you agree with me in a way. The small crown is the first sub and the sub is the DNA of Rolex. Surely that does not make
a SC a boxster.
Ofcourse I am biased. I love small crowns. But I also like big crowns - don't get me wrong. Yes your right I can better
argue when I own both of course.
In meantime lets find a better analogy. I also don't like the 928 one.
And I say it again. For me the 911 of Rolex is the 5512 and early 5513 - NOT the big crown.
I bet if we did a poll - I would get the response I am looking for.
best Edmond
Ah, if what counts is public perception, as you say....then....
......the public perception...the market perception.....is that the 6536/5508 are the Boxters and the 6200/6538/5510 BCs are the 911s.....
....we come full-circle and you end up arguing in favour of my original view. Harsh maybe...but fair.