How likely 63 caseback + 67 Rivet bracelet being all original

[swingt]

From the same 1675 watch?...Thanks!

[andromeda160]

Not likely at all. I can almost guarantee you that it didn't come with the watch

[watchcrank]

Usually watches of this era hung around and if not popular two, even five years could be norm. And jewelers changed up as customer desired. If someone walked in and it had a dated jubilee on it and customer wanted oyster they'd just swap it out from stock or another watch. I have personally had this done at more than one shop. So don't discount it 100%. Plus if a bracelet buckle was damaged it was easy to swap buckles as it is today. M

[JerimiahLee]

Originally Posted by watchcrank

Usually watches of this era hung around and if not popular two, even five years could be norm. And jewelers changed up as customer desired. If someone walked in and it had a dated jubilee on it and customer wanted oyster they'd just swap it out from stock or another watch. I have personally had this done at more than one shop. So don't discount it 100%. Plus if a bracelet buckle was damaged it was easy to swap buckles as it is today. M

Agreed, I have purchased some original owner watches and have a bracelet disparity of a year or more. I've never actually purchased one where the case back stamp and bracelet matched identically (quarter/year), however I am sure someone who has will chime in.

There is no steadfast rule. As watchcrank mentioned often dealers swapped bracelets at a customers request. As long as the bracelet is period correct I would accept it with the piece.