meadowsweet_ Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 I recently purchased a random box of old Rolex parts (mostly sealed NOS tubes, crown, movement parts, etc.) and one of the pieces in the lot was a supposedly gen 1016 case back. Upon first glance it certainly appears genuine to my eye: shape and dimensions look good, the wear on it looks appropriate for its supposed age, etc. It has all the correct stampings on the inside back, but this is where I'm hung up and was hoping some of the resident 1016 experts might be able to chime in with some wisdom. The case markings appear to have been stamped on the case back twice, one directly on top of the other, albeit slightly offset. In my estimation (and I most definitely could be wrong here), the markings appear to be pressure stamped and not engraved, as they are supposed to be. And the fonts and letter spacing/positioning seems to be correct. But I can't seem to find any sort of reference material or evidence pointing to Rolex ever double stamping a case. I theorized that this was a "repurposed" case back and that it was not originally destined for a 1016 and originally had no reference number stamp on it and perhaps simply stamping a "1016" by itself on the case wasn't possible and accordingly the entire stamping had to be re-done. Pure assumption however. Needless to say, this one has me scratching my head, and moving forward I'm going to continue operating under the assumption that it is not genuine (of course, I would love to be shown information to the contrary). The other thing that gives me pause is the date coding. It is my understanding that the date coding is a small roman numeral followed by a two-digit year code, the roman numeral representing which quarter of the year the watch was produced in. Is the roman numeral actually indicative of the month rather than the quarter? Because a date code of "VI.66" would put it at the "sixth quarter" of 1966, which makes absolutely no sense. Now, "VI" representing month 6 (i.e., June) makes a little more sense, but I can only ever remember seeing date codes ranging from I-IV (or quarter "one" through quarter "four"). Also, this particular marking looks to be engraved, not pressure stamped like the rest of the markings but I could be wrong there too. And lastly, there appears to be watchmaker service marks on the inside of the back, from when the watch was most likely whole and being serviced? And if someone "made" this case back then why would they go through the trouble of scratching in watchmaker marks if the glaringly obvious error of the double stamp was already present? That in turn, got me thinking that maybe this was in fact a gen case back, just not one for an Explorer. And that maybe originally it had no ref number stamped on it, was worked on by a watchmaker, and then WAY later got an entire new stamping. This time with the desirable 1016 ref number stamped on it. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through for a rep case back (especially one I paid a mere $50 for) and sometimes the simplest answer is also the best, so maybe it is just a weirdo Rolex stamping. Who knows? Hopefully some of you pro 1016 guys can shed some light... Maybe I'm just thinking WAY too much about this and overanalyzing it. Has anyone ever seen or heard of this type of double stamping before? If so, I would certainly love an education on the matter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
droptopman Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 No expert, but I have definitely seen VI.66 on genuine case backs from reputable sources. It's my birthday year so frequently looking at 66 models. Sent from my droptop using telepathy ️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadowsweet_ Posted June 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Thank you Drop! Must refer to something other than quarterly assignments. Still curious about that double stamp though, the macro photos almost make me dizzy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue. Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Nice example of a 66 case back. Rather rare to see such shift in the stamping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denimhead Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Looks 100% right to me, Ive seen a few examples of the double stamping on vintage case backs. Funny to think that this was fine for Rolex to produce back then, regarding their QC dept! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadowsweet_ Posted June 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Thank you blue and Denim. Glad I took a chance on it. I've found some more photos that show what appear to be double stampings, although not as severely offset as this one. And denim makes a great point about Rolex QC. You'd think something like this wouldn't pass any sort of quality control muster, maybe they just shrugged it off since it was the inside of a case back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogladio Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Regarding the VI on Rolex/Tudor watches from 1966, most accepted theory is that someone in assembly line just made a mistake when going for "IV" (mirrored). Other theories of course involved "number of the beast" and various satanic Rolex connections... As far as I know (note, limited knowledge) there are no IV.66 or V.66 Rolex watches, although this does seem like a bold statement. Here's my explorer cb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadowsweet_ Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Regarding the VI on Rolex/Tudor watches from 1966, most accepted theory is that someone in assembly line just made a mistake when going for "IV" (mirrored). Other theories of course involved "number of the beast" and various satanic Rolex connections... As far as I know (note, limited knowledge) there are no IV.66 or V.66 Rolex watches, although this does seem like a bold statement. Here's my explorer cb: And another triple six bc at that. Thanks for that tidbit of great info. Seems to make perfect sense that if Rolex was able to muck up the case back double stamping as such, it stands to reason that they'd allow a flip-flop printing of the "IV" to "VI" to pass QC muster. And as far as I can find reference to, the first numeral IS supposed to denote quarter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadowsweet_ Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 And if it denotes quarter, then the mirrored printing "theory" is backed up by a lack of "IV" or "V" numbered case backs. Seems like 50 bucks well spent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
droptopman Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 You can find good info here on this http://www.vintagerolexforum.com/ Look in the serial number project tab it includes case back markings and plenty of VI.66 are documented. Sent from my droptop using telepathy ️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmb Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 Case solved! Ogladio's been stamping these things out in his basement! On the first example everything's obvious on the top half and only a hint (decreasingly) from there down/ Almost like the die was "cocked" on the first strike, missing the lower stuff, then the die was corrected and struck again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogladio Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 Lol, must plead non guilty of that J, but was actually considering asking you to clone that engraving to a caseback that would actually fit my 1016 - with that weird quarter an all! Do you think you could achieve the "double stamp" effect somehow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmb Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 I don't think it would look right with rotary engraving... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadowsweet_ Posted June 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Well, the case back won't fit on a gen 16000 mid case. Threads aren't thick enough. I wonder if it's a difference between modern vs. vintage/older Rolex case construction; if the 1016 case back might fit on a gen 162XX mid case. Maybe it would work with a 1601 mid case )since it's not a modern-era case construction)? Hmm… Going to have to keep my eyes peeled and see if I can find a 1601 case for sale, I'm now determined to use this beautiful CB in a 1016 build Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogladio Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 1016 cb does not fit 160x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadowsweet_ Posted June 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Saved me some bucks and some headaches ogladio, much appreciated. Maybe I can convince JMB to work with me on getting it to fit on one of his 1016 case sets. It almost screws all the way onto the V2 mid case I got from him a month or so back, but the threads are misaligned. I'm not sure if re-tapping a mid case is possible nor do I know the specs on the 1016 case back threads. Now that the 160X case has been eliminated as an option, I'm wondering if anyone tried to fit one onto a 162XX mid case? Might be my last hope for trying to get it onto a mid case I already have without shelling out a grand on a gen 1016 mid case if I could even source one. Saw one on VRF for around 1300 Euro, but it was in awful condition and a bit cost prohibitive anyways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmb Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Most of, well all I've tried, rep case-backs seem to have a .5 thread pitch. I'm sure that the mid-case could be re-tapped but not sure how secure the threads would be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.