Reference:3139: Difference between revisions

Line 280:

On case numbers and dating, the surfaced serials cluster in the 244,000–245,000 range for the earliest wartime examples (244815, 244828, 244874, 245141) and extend across a wide later range (106594, 212445, 214602, 275697, 275869, 381811, 382045) for the bulk of documented production. Dating via case number is reasonably firm within the early cluster; the later cases are anchored mainly by each lot's own catalogue estimate rather than by serial sequence. Antiquorum's "1930s" attribution on 382045 is the one anomaly in the surfaced record; the consensus reading places that case in the mid-1940s.

Caseback engravings — service numbers, names, dates ~~— are almost always owner~~ additions rather than factory issue marks. A ~~serviceman's name, service number, unit, or date of issue engraved on the back~~ is a provenance ~~detail~~, separate from ~~any~~ question of government issue~~. Where such~~ an engraving ~~ties to a documented serviceman, it is an attractive provenance layer; where it is present but undocumented, it is neutral~~. The ~~absence of a~~ broad arrow or W.W.W. ~~is not a defect; no 3139 left the factory with those~~ marks.

Caseback engravings with service numbers, names, or dates may be later ownership or service additions rather than factory issue marks. A documented engraving is provenance evidence, separate from the question of government issue; an undocumented engraving cannot establish issue history. The cited lots do not show broad-arrow or W.W.W. marks.

The movement should be signed with the Rolex wordmark and carry seventeen jewels, the 10½ Hunter or 710 architecture, and manual-wind operation via the Oyster crown. A replacement movement of a different architecture (automatic, larger calibre number, or different jewel count) indicates a service substitution somewhere in the watch's history.

@@ Line 280: / Line 280: @@
 On case numbers and dating, the surfaced serials cluster in the 244,000–245,000 range for the earliest wartime examples (244815, 244828, 244874, 245141) and extend across a wide later range (106594, 212445, 214602, 275697, 275869, 381811, 382045) for the bulk of documented production. Dating via case number is reasonably firm within the early cluster; the later cases are anchored mainly by each lot's own catalogue estimate rather than by serial sequence. Antiquorum's "1930s" attribution on 382045 is the one anomaly in the surfaced record; the consensus reading places that case in the mid-1940s.
-Caseback engravings — service numbers, names, dates — are almost always owner additions rather than factory issue marks. A serviceman's name, service number, unit, or date of issue engraved on the back is a provenance detail, separate from any question of government issue. Where such an engraving ties to a documented serviceman, it is an attractive provenance layer; where it is present but undocumented, it is neutral. The absence of a broad arrow or W.W.W. is not a defect; no 3139 left the factory with those marks.
+Caseback engravings with service numbers, names, or dates may be later ownership or service additions rather than factory issue marks. A documented engraving is provenance evidence, separate from the question of government issue; an undocumented engraving cannot establish issue history. The cited lots do not show broad-arrow or W.W.W. marks.
 The movement should be signed with the Rolex wordmark and carry seventeen jewels, the 10½ Hunter or 710 architecture, and manual-wind operation via the Oyster crown. A replacement movement of a different architecture (automatic, larger calibre number, or different jewel count) indicates a service substitution somewhere in the watch's history.