Rolex 5513 Steve McQueen

Last week, Phillips announced: “The sale of a historically significant piece, a previously unknown Rolex Submariner, owned and worn by Steve McQueen” Very good.

Reading these lines, I first think, like many, of a relisting of the famous 5512 sold by Antiquorum in 2009 for 234.000USD . A trifle compared to 17,752,500USD that Paul's Daytona hit with a hammer. It would therefore be easy to understand the motivation of the owner of the McQueen Submariner 5512 to put the baby back on sale at a moment of excitement when the craziest records seem to be possible.

Only here, on closer inspection, it is a 5513 that McQueen would have offered to his stuntman Lauren Janes. Looking even closer, other details raise more and more questions about the condition and the origin of this watch. Two criteria that when talking about antique watches and auctions make all the difference…

–

THE SOURCE :

A watch that has belonged, been worn, and shared the intimacy of a movie legend admired for his innate sense of style and cool is not exactly the same as a watch that was supposedly purchased by that same person to make a gift, without providing irrefutable proof. I'm in no way minimizing Lauren Janes' cool potential, he's just not McQueen. No offense.

The story goes that the watch was bought by McQueen in the 60s, worn by him, then given to Loren Janes in the 70s with the following inscription on the caseback:

“LAUREN,
THE BEST DAMN
STUNTMAN IN
THE WORLD
STEVE”

The inscription looks good, that's for sure, now wouldn't Steve McQueen have rather offered a new watch to his friend rather than a personal piece already worn It would logically seem more King of cool, but it t is impossible to verify without having shared at some point the daily life of one of the two protagonists.es. Maybe, maybe not.

The story is apparently based on a series of extremely well-known shots of Ron Galella taken in Montego Bay, Jamaica on the set of the film Papillon in 1973. We can actually see Steve McQueen drinking his coffee, Rolex Submariner on his right wrist. Zooming in on the photo, it would appear that the Submariner in question only has two lines of text at six o'clock, and not four, like its famous 5512. It would therefore indeed be a 5513.

Steve McQueen owned several Submariner, just like Paul Newman several Daytona. The concern raised by this piece is that for the moment, the elements presented by the auction house relate to a Loren Janes submariner, offered by Steve, but there is no irrefutable proof that this watch was ever worn by the King of Cool.”. Nothing .

If we take in comparison the record sale of Paul Newman's Daytona, the provenance was clear and perfectly verifiable, the watch had remained in the family, property of James Cox, ex-husband of Nell Newman, daughter of Paul, since the latter had been offered the famous chronograph from the very hands of his future father-in-law when he was still only a teenager.

Verifiable information with the family, many supporting photos. This is serious. Serious and all the more commendable when the latter decides to part with this object in order to raise funds to finance the foundation of his ex-wife.

We are told here of a fire, of a watch miraculously found among the flames, graciously restored by Rolex USA in a not really faithful way, we will see it below, then bought by a Beverly Hills shark from a Loren Janes just three months before his disappearance when the latter was already very severely affected by Alzheimer's disease. A sale whose profits will therefore not go to the legitimate family of the (first or second) owner of the watch.

Philipps does not bring much for now except for an extremely well-known photo of McQueen wearing what looks like a 5513 and a watch with an engraved back that was offered to Loren Janes.

There is no evidence that it is the same watch, especially when you add a fire that destroys all the memories of the stuntman, an Alzheimer's disease and a completely restored watch…

Catering precisely, let's talk about it…

THE CONDITION :

This is where it gets really confusing, as the restoration performed by Rolex USA falls far short of what the featured chronology watch should look like, nor the auction house's marketing campaign photos.

The dial :

First of all, the dial, an essential element in estimating the value of a watch, as you know, is no longer the original dial of a 5513, which for a Submariner purchased in the 1960s with a serial number in 1.1 million must have been born with a gilt dial, two lines and even certainly what collectors call a Bart Simpson crown due to its elongated shape.gée.

Instead, the replacement dial is certainly very beautiful, but is a matte dial of 5512, white writing and 4 lines of which two of them mention a chronometer certification to which the caliber of a 5513 simply does not have been submitted. Not really compliant.

The bracelet :

Again, it doesn't fit. The watch is presented mounted on a 93150 full-link oyster bracelet. Please.

For a watch that was bought, as the story goes, by McQueen in 1964, its original bracelet would have to be riveted. Let's assume, but it's unlikely, that he bought one of the very first 9315 bracelets with folded links released around 1967, pass again. But an armored bracelet with a Fliplock clasp that only appeared in 1975 does not fit. It doesn't fit with a box of 5513 bought more than 10 years ago, and especially not with a reference photo that dates from 1973.

A bracelet gets damaged, a bracelet changes, of course, a bracelet can even be caught in the flames, it's possible. But bring us the proof and the full story, please! And if you change the bracelet, put on the good one! However, it doesn't have to be so complicated when your name is Philipps.

This is not a watch picked up on the right corner from an individual, but rather a piece presented by one of the most important auction houses in the field today. We are therefore entitled to expect more transparency and explanations regarding these conditions, which raise many questions. Nope?

BEWARE OF TEMPTATIONS…

Again, I ask some questions, maybe Philipps will provide all the answers during the sale and I sincerely hope so. The famous Rolex restoration CD mentioned in the letter from Rolex USA to the family of Loren Janes may contain photos of the watch before restoration. Maybe.

In the meantime, their way of presenting things seems to me all the same to be confusing and to induce a much higher association with McQueen than it was, without providing the slightest really definitive proof.

Not the most subtle way to restore the image of a vintage market that is already experiencing many abuses. Let's be serious, we are probably talking about big bucks here, real dollars that a buyer, whether informed or not, will pay to acquire this piece; it would be a shame if he only acquired an engraved case back that once belonged to Lauren Janes…

Notice to forecasters, results on October 25 in New York. We have time for a little coffee…