Rolex

Baron - Mr Red
14613

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Rolex 1665 Sea-Dweller: Mk1 Patent Pending "twins"

The Rolex Sea-Dweller 1665 Mk1 Patent Pending has to be one of the most  written-about watches in vintage Rolex territory. Some learned accounts of the origins of the MK1 Double Red can be found very readily on the internet. Of course, some of the earlier accounts have subsequently been revised and edited as new information has evolved. For example, it was originally proposed that only 100 Mk1 Patent Pendings were produced, with perhaps 30-40 surviving intact today. Over the years, it has evolved that perhaps as many as 200-300 were produced with a similar attrition leaving maybe 80-100 in existence today. These numbers are still guesses but based on evidence accumulated over the years from a wide range of sources. Whichever way one wants to cut it, however, the Mk1 Double Red Patent Pending Sea-Dweller is a very rare watch. What I will say is that if one took all Rolex dials, one would probably place the Mk1 Patent Pending dial in the top 10 of Rolex rarest dials. Now, I haven't seen enough to make a claim like that, but I would trust someone like Marcello Pisani, who tells me that Top 10 rarest dial is very appropriate.

The first example here is one with clear red writing. But the second example has a small variation...the writing has become pink.

Its place in history is assured. Firstly, the Sea-Dweller and its helium escape valve placed Rolex right at the head of the game in terms of serious tool watches. Up until this point in history (late 1960s), although depth ratings had been declining, the ability for a watch to withstand greater depths had not been possible courtesy of the inability for helium to escape the watch safely, thus typically resulting in the plexiglass exploding during decompression. Rolex overcame this problem via the HEV (helium escape valve) - a one-directional valve that detects the pressure differences between the inside of the watch and the outside. Rolex had a long history of being viewed as the tool watch for the serious professional explorer….be it sea, air or land. The HEV drew a line in the sand that cemented that DNA. For this reason, amongst others, the Sea-Dweller has a very important place in Rolex history. 

The Sea-Dweller reference 1665 was born in 1967 and was produced in its various modes through to 1983.

The very early 1665 prototypes carried the inscription “Patent Pending” on the caseback as patents had not been granted at the start of manufacture. I will add a small aside here on the use of the word “prototype”. I was at a GTG once when two very seasoned collector/dealers laughed at me when I used the word “prototype”. They argued instead that the watch was in regular production and that since 1-2 Mk1 had surfaced with box and punched papers from an Authorised Dealer, it was a production watch and not a prototype. I will argue differently. The vast majority of Mk1 Patent Pendings do not turn up with punched papers from an Authorised Dealer. Instead, what is typical is that a diver was given a 1665 prototype directly from Rolex to test and evaluate and that this prototype subsequently turns up directly from the diver. I know of just 1 or 2 Patent Pendings that have punched papers from an AD. I know of many that have no papers or anything - just a watch. I know of at least 10 that have full documentation from the diver, stating that the watch was given to them by Rolex to test. I know of 1 or 2 that have such written confirmation direct from Rolex. So, why do i say that it is a prototype rather than a production watch? Well, I am basing that on facts. Would Rolex really have a production run of just 200-300 watches? That seems extremely unlikely to start with. I have direct evidence showing that Rolex gifted Mk1 Patent Pendings directly to divers in order to test and make suggestions for improvement. That sounds to me like it is a prototype……Oh, and of course there is one further piece of evidence in support of the prototype concept. Namely, in the first paragraph of a letter from Rolex to the diver, it states Sea Dweller prototype. Rolex themselves called it a prototype.

Patent pending engraved in the  casebacks

One last point on the issue of prototype. If one assumes that the original production of Mk1 patent pendings was of the order 200-300, it makes sense that this production did not take place at the same point in time. The time gap between the first and last of these 1665s may well have been 4-5 years. It probably was. When Omega placed Plopprofs with Comex and the Cousteau team, it was done with varying time gaps.  If one takes this as correct, then it is entirely plausible that 1665 Mk1 Patent Pendings that were made (and not placed with divers) were subsequently sent to ADs for sale once the agreement with Comex was established. Similarly, it seems a perfectly reasonable theory to propose that when a dial carries a special feature, then it may well be because it is a prototype. A good example of this is the appearance of early 1665s with 500m depth readings on the dial. Are such watches production watches or prototypes? To my mind, the facts are fairly clear. Such watches were manufactured by Rolex as prototypes for testing.

How can you tell a Mk1 Patent Pending? Well, this post is not about minutiae. But here is one way that identifies the Mk1. On Mk1s, the size of the text for SEA-DWELLER and SUBMARINER 2000 is the same. In other variations, the font size on these two words differs. But this post is not really about identifying the minutiae. Rather, it is about two Mk1 Patent Pendings that have been in my collection for a number of years now. The story behind them is extraordinary.

My two Mk1 Patent Pendings have consecutive serial numbers. Yes….just one digit separates the two watches. What is more, the two divers that owned these watches knew each other and often dived with each other. Neither knew that they had consecutive serial number watches…at least not back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. What is more, both divers are still alive and have documented fully each watch, what they did with each watch and also their relationship with Rolex. I have written documentation from Rolex to one of the divers that states that the watch was on loan to the diver in return for information from the diver about how the watch performed. I have further documentation to and from Rolex stating that the watch was subsequently gifted to the diver in return for information provided by the diver. Was this a production watch? I think I prefer to hold the original documentation on Rolex letterhead from 1971 describing the early history of the birth of the Sea-Dweller than punched papers. To my thinking, this is the very raw and cutting moments of the birth of the Sea-Dweller. To hold the documentation that shows Rolex loaning a watch to a diver in order for that diver to provide information about the performance of the watch is, in itself, an integral part of Rolex and Sea-Dweller history. It is what makes vintage Rolex so attractive and I am lucky enough to own that history. 

However, my documentation goes further still. It cites the fact that the watch was gifted to the diver because a contract in 1972 between Rolex and a major diving company had been made and that this enabled only that specific dive company to be responsible for the testing of the Sea-Dweller. Comex. So, another piece of documented history shows that before Comex, Rolex also used other divers to test their Sea-Dwellers. This, of course, is not new news. However, to have the information documented in hard copy form on Rolex letterhead is rather special, and makes the watch rather special. Documentation from one of the divers also confirms that Comex is the dive company in question. I have previously owned a Sea-Dweller 1665 Mk1 Patent Pending that was issued directly to the US Navy in 1969. Indeed, it is clear that pre-1972, many diverse testings were provided to Rolex. After 1972, it appears that the relationship with Comex became more of a marriage.

I say watch, but I should say watches. As there are two, and the history documented by both divers is fascinating. Ranging from the type of diving work that they did to the types of tests the watch was exposed to and how this was reported back to Rolex. Yes….I also have the reports written by the divers that were subsequently relayed back to Rolex. 

There are many reasons why vintage Rolex is deeply fascinating. The iconic nature of the watches. The DNA that has persisted in an almost timeless manner. But also, the patchiness of the history that exists. This patchiness is a double-edged sword….since when one possesses something that clarifies a situation and places more solidity behind the history, then it becomes something that is integral to Rolex history. That adds significantly to its attraction.

But now onto the two watches themselves. Despite being issued at an identical time, there are some differences in these two watches. As shown in the first two photographs, one has seen its writing turn to a soft pink hue whereas the other has maintained its more distinct red writing. Collectors vary in their appreciation of this feature, with many preferring the pink. It is the Mk1s version of tropic…

These two Mk1 Patent Pendings are twins. Their respective serial numbers being xxxxx464 and xxxxx465. They were owned by two divers who were not just colleagues but also friends. The documentation represents an important landmark in Rolex history for a number of reasons;

1. Rolex documentation shows clear evidence of issuing the watches to divers who did not work for Comex. Although it has long been known that other dive companies were involved in the testing of the Sea-Dweller along with Comex, this documentation provides written evidence proving this point. The documentation reveals that up until 1972, dive companies other than Comex had also been testing the Sea-Dweller, but that from 1972 onwards a Comex exclusivity emerged. Of course, a relationship between Rolex and Comex had existed in the 1960s, but this was not an exclusive relationship. 

1. The documentation shows a direct link between a Mk1 being issued on loan to a diver in return for evaluation and testing, subsequent reports from the diver directly to Rolex and then Rolex written response thanking the diver for the information and gifting of the watch to the diver in return for the information. As far as I am aware, this is the only written evidence on Rolex letterhead detailing this entire process. No doubt this occurred for many other Sea-Dweller prototypes, but for the majority, neither watches nor documentation survived. I suppose one cannot argue that all Mk1 Sea-Dwellers were raw prototypes such as the ones I own, but this documentation proves that 464 and 465 are most definitely prototypes. 

1. It is well-known that Mk1 Patent Pendings fall within two very narrowly defined serial number ranges. Finding two that have consecutive serial numbers with divers that not only knew each other but who were friends and dived together is a unique facet to this story. Again, to my knowledge, there are no other Mk1 Patent Pendings with consecutive serial numbers. They may exist, but to my knowledge these are the only two.

The Sea-Dweller is a watch that is close to my heart. Its history within Rolex is unquestioned. It carries with it the very essence of what Rolex is - the serious tool watch for professionals. Of course, when one buys a Sea-Dweller, very few will take it diving to anywhere near its capacity. Yet, knowing that it has been tested to be reliable and dependable under the most extreme conditions and that professionals choose to use it because of that makes it, well, very Rolex. One last scan to show....a picture of my Mk1 twins along with my Mk2 Patent Pending....its the poor relation in this trio, but nonetheless one very special watch. The comparison of the three in the sunlight shows the three different tones to the red writing....it also shows that tropical turn on the Mk2 which is the bottom row watch.

Site Info.