thewightstuff

this applies only to the later, modern type seadwellers. the 1665 model all had HEVs as per nanuqs photos. same material as case, small and rounded on the face. ive a 5514 that also has the same valve as per the 1665.

was just away to come on and say this but you beat me to it. indeed the clasp should have a smooth fliplock and there should be no thumb indent on the underside either. these are for modern versions though whether this is now what you would get from RSC as a replacement bracelet is unclear

if you want to see a gen pointed crown guard in all its glory.... ebay item 270248948301 beautiful

the tube is actually twinlock so would have been on watches up to approx 1969 as original fitment. they were replaced by the 702 triplock which was then superceded by the present 703 in around 1972. i'll need to check my paperwork and service bulletins for exact dates. this would mean that a 3.4m serial could have had early triplock but would have been unlikely to have had twinlock still. the twinlock is correct for pointed crown guards but then they dont tie in with the rest of the watch.

dial screws can be had from rolex. just pop into your AD and ask them. small parts like that they can usually get without much trouble at all, they just call the local service centre and get it sent across. its actually usually simple enough to get them to get misc things like screws or spring bars. ive got a few here but im not parting with them as they are easily lost and i hate having to wait for new ones to come in with a watch in pieces. patience is not my strongest point in true rolex style though they arent cheap. over $30 per screw at last reckoning i think from memory. they have a standard screw price it seems as movement clamp screws were the same price as i got some at the same time i'll see if i can dig out my parts scan and get you the number for the screws as it might help you.

item number 290239877464 if the description wasnt enough to make your spidey senses tingle the pointed crown guards on a 3 mill serial and the crown tube being so high up on the case that its almost off the edge would do it. the engraving doesnt smell right either.

general consensus is this was stopped in the mid to late 70s however my 16800 has 1.84 in the caseback so go figure. i think that to just go with the mindset of not being surprised if there isnt a date stamp inside from mid 70s onwards and you will be fine. no date from this period onwards shouldnt start ringing alarm bells by itself thats for sure. earlier than this though and you are looking at a very real possibility of a caseback swap either from another watch or at service. might not seem a big deal but in the world of vintage it can knock alot of the value of the watch.

its a gen dial with crazing across it due to age. there was a batch of WG surrounds from the 80s that show that for some reason, not restricted to 5513s either, ive seen some on 16800s and gmts also from the same period. i personally dont like them but each to their own. suppliers have labelled them "spider" dials to try and charge a premium or sell an otherwise useless dial to market. if you like the look though then go for it as its certainly unique in some regards. id hold off and get a matte dial or a no crazed dial if i were you unless it is available for little money if you are after gen dials

yep, totally not real, you did good to stay away, though it is nicer than the regular 5513 rep dials thats for sure, but only because they are so woeful. for $50 it wouldnt be a bad job to replace the normal rep dials, it would help a little but it wouldnt pass much as gen i cant imagine well spotted guys fonts are all wrong across the board, spacing is all wrong particularly with the depth rating and submariner, markers are funny sizes and swiss T25 isnt nice either. coronet is poor too, its like a gilt shape.

i tend to draw the line at the point it wants some back door action. it may seem simplistic but its held me in good stead this far

if this is the same as the ones ive seen, the case is a good bit larger than a regular submariner and the crystal is much wider. its actually quite nice but looks super wrong in terms of accuracy. if you can see it in the flesh you may get a better idea, they may just be using parts and a different case now but there was a series of these for $70 a while ago and they all were much much too large. just IIRC

just shows the difference a dial makes huh, as if anyone into older rollies needed to be told just now. mattes are picking up pace and fast being the last of the pieces vintage will look at. i know of a few that have sold, minus papers for the $7.5k mark in the last few weeks and yet with the gloss dial and WG you struggle to shift them at all and theres no significant collectibility. its like the WG and gloss 5513. no one really wants them and the only people picking them up are those wanting a cheap rolex or those on the fringes of the vintage world that cant get onto the wheel with the regular models. even though theres tritium and patina just like everything else, that shift to gloss and WG moves the models significantly across the fence that surrounds the vintage models. dealers and collectors wont touch anything above 8.5m with a matte either assuming its been retrofitted too. it will be interesting to see if money overrides this in the future. with the rise and rise of vintage will the dealers create a shift in this perception to allow them to cash in on these models too. my own feeling is this may just be a stretch too much but who knows. tudors have risen, sharply in some cases and these arent even real rollies. i wouldnt like to have shelled out the prices being paid for these just now when the dust settles thats for sure.

nope, just my balls. do you shave your tongue?

aligoat, i cant get the ebay links to work but you could well be right. i thought that the gloss dial game in sans WG surrounds and these didnt make an appearance until the steel change and model rev to 168000 but since i have almost negligable interest in the gloss dials (stretching to the sapphire was almost too far for me haha) it could be that im mistaken. service dials for the 16800 are WG, just as they are for the 5513 which probably means a period both where WG was used and certainly that WG will now be in many 16800s even if not when new. maybe the WG caught the 16800A only before they dropped the A in favour of an extra 0. jetson, yeah it replaced the 5513. im still unsure if i did the right thing though the 16800 isnt too common and picking up market wise thats for sure. i just saw one go for 7.5k. i was loving the date mag at first, the whole reason i changed out but im now seeing the draw of the non date in a more acute fashion. (good job i kept the 5512 i guess) im not feeling the sapphire crystal either, its too flashy and smudges easily but i am getting used to it. its 100% original. i see alot with much darker inserts. i guess maybe they arent as hermetically sealed as the dial and hands. the dial and hands are cream but show up white in the pics sadly. the matte is lovely but the sapphire doesnt show it off as plexi does.

i think its actually ref 168000 technically. from memory the transitional 16800 didnt see WG on the surrounds though it did get a gloss dial at the end before the change from 316L to 904L case material and WG markers along with the new reference 168000. i need to get out more haha