bruce79

Just curious, did they make reference to it being a G series?

I have to say though that single AR would make the black dial on my SD pop that much more. Heck, I may even just get it done in chief's next AR run.

...

Sharp!

It's a tough call because the pre-owned market is so soft right now. I have seen 111i go from $3500-$4000 and 000k series go from $3300 to $3800. The 000 is no doubt in better cosmetic condition, has 1.5 years left on the warranty, 1 owner, and comes with everything! Mine is a couple years old, has some dings & scratches, no outer box/polishing cloth. As you know, selling a gen nowadays is tough. I know the 111 retails for more but on the used market, with the above watches in mind...it's tough.

Hey Chief, if not an even trade, which do you suppose would be the lesser?

I recently took in a 111i on trade and am now considering trading it for a 000K...just love the base painted dial. My 111 is in excellent shape with some scratches and a ding or two. The 000 is in Mint condition and is only 6 months old. Even though the 111 has a better movement and retails for a bit higher, would you consider this trade to be even? The 111 is over two years old and runs great, just regulated to +3 seconds. I would say so but I just wanted to bounce it off the gen owners here. Thanks

I don't know that BC's 000 is a franken. I saw another logo on a gen forum that had the E series movement.

Thought this was a joke until I saw it was in the looney bin. Man, you should have it looked at right away...and have the dealer pay for any repairs.

Brilliant! I'm so glad you're posting threads like this again...the amount of time put into threads like these can be enormous. Thank you!

It's funny that you say that about the lume...I just picked up a gen 111 this week and the lume is superb...but not quite as bright as my modded rep pams...funny. I luv the base models though...and the logos!

Hold on here guys...check out this thread on another forum... replace the xx with tt hxxp://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=64888 I've never had any issues with paypal hackers but I suppose it could happen...

Well, from my searching the non italicized versions seem to be more plentiful. I think it could have just been a mistake made for a couple years by the company Rolex outsourced the dials to.

I think I may have found another variation between the two dials. For the italicized = version, the 1 for 1000 is sans-serif font while... the 1 for the 1000 is serif for the non italicized version. It's very slight but I believe it is there.

Indeed...I was a bit skeptical of my = until I started to find a few others like it...then I breathed a sigh of relief. They are out there though seemingly not as plentiful as the non italicized = ... and as I mentioned above, along with the variations in = signs there are slight variations in printing for the 2 dials...especially with regards to letter spacing. I suspect that during this super short run (5-6 years or so) of matte dial 16800s, Rolex probably sourced their dial work out to 2 different companies...perhaps changing companies midway through the short production run. I bet the numbers on the back of the dials can confirm this.

I was doing some more research last night on a certain vintage rolex forum and found that during service, Rolex used to outsource the reluming & refinishing of their dials...as recently as the mid 90s...so this one sure could have been relumed during service...I'll try and get some super close macro shots up.

The lume does not glow at all. On the side of the 12 o'clock marker, up close it looks like it was scratched or something along those lines...I know it's tough to tell from the pics. As far as the back of the dial goes, it looked exactly like the back of this 16800 dial...which I know is gen...there is just a series of numbers.

Well, I wouldn't say it's chocolate yet...but on it's way for sure... Ok, so I finally made it home and looked through my pics...there are quite a few different settings but I tried to show the best dial pics...sorry, no macros. Something that had stumped me was the fact that my "=" sign between feet & meters was italicized and of the few examples I'd seen, all of the equal signs were standard font, not in italics. Well, tonight I did some heavy searching on some gen forums and got through quite a few pics. And I was quite surprised to see some 16800 with italic '=' signs. AFAIK, there are two 16800 matte dial versions. The small difference being in the equal sign...and also between these two versions there are also the ever so slightest variations in the letter spacing in the word 'SUBMARINER'. Could just be me though... Here is my 16800... And here are some of the other dials I found on the web...showing the two variations... Italicized '=' sign Non-italicized '=' sign...but look, closed 9s on the date disc...hmm Non-italicized '=' sign And some more, you get the idea...

Unless you're really familiar with matte 16800s, the markers will appear a little fat...but mine are no fatter than any other matte 16800. The lighting in the pics I posted above really washes the dial out...really not good pics for reference but I just had to get some opinions as there are some really experts around here. This is my first delve into the Rolex semi/vintage world. One thing I can say about my watch is that it was probably worn every day of its 28 year life. The case has been polished more than a couple of times and the clasp is on its last leg. The black portion of the matte dial (though difficult to see in the above pics) has taken on a brownish hue...I'm sure from many many years in the sun...which may be why the text may appear more faded. The hands & bezel insert were swapped out during servicing so they were probably in pretty bad shape. These matte dials react so differently from each other...as does the tritium. They can be so individual. The markings on the back of the dial are consistent with every example I've been able to find on the net for the gen dials from that period. And as Chief says, Rolex has so many variations from this period it makes it nearly impossible to say one variation is more correct than another.

Thanks for the response Freddy...but I think a couple of your points may be off. The 6 & 9 markers are fatter on the matte dial 16800...check every gen example out there and they will look exactly like the mine...thick! With the regards to the rest of the watch excluding the dial, everything is gen as confirmed by the watchmaker that had my watch in pieces. The crown & tube are gen. I know these pics are not the best...I'll try to get some more up later tonight. The watchmaker that I'm referring too definitely knows his Rolex parts and he at one point (or still does) have a service account with them and has several hundred NOS parts...I just think he may be unfamiliar with the matte dial 16800.

So, somewhat of an interesting visit at the local watch maker involving my recently acquired gen 7.1 mil 16800. Short background on my watch. I acquired it a couple weeks ago through a fellow member of a gen forum for a good price. Watch came with boxes and all accessories but no papers. I asked a lot of questions and felt pretty good about the purchase. I knew before buying it that the hands & bezel insert & possibly the datewheel were swapped out during a previous service for luminova parts (hands & insert) & for a closed 6s & 9s datewheel. No biggie, I figured I got it for a good enough price that I can search for tritium parts parts and swap them out without taking much of a hit. And I knew that the watch had seen the pads of a polishing wheel one too many times, again...not a big deal. So, I recently scored some tritium hands that I was told were for a 16800 (cal. 3035)...turns out they were for a 1680 (cal. 1570) so they won't fit...no big deal as I can get a refund of the hefty price I paid. But now to the interesting part. To get the hands swapped out, I took the watch to a local watchmaker that came highly recommended from a couple of local gen collectors. When I was speaking to him about the above mentioned issues with the hands, he mentioned that he thought the dial looked a bit funny. I asked him what he meant and he said the finish seemed rather poor....that the dial text wasn't as crisp as it should be...and that there was just "something about the hour markers." He said the dial could possibly have been touched up, it could be a redial, or it could be an aftermarket dial with the feet sawed off & glued to the movement!!! I started to freak out a bit and my mind started racing. I asked him for more specific details as to why he thought it was suspect but he just kept giving me broad, roundabout answers...nothing specific. It started to dawn on me that perhaps this guy is not familiar with the 16800 model. It was indeed a transitional model and the matte dial was different from the 1680 dials & the latter 16800 glossy dials. My dial was in pretty good condition but the edges (where the dial meets the case) were starting to oxidize a bit and the hour makers were starting to patina as well. So I asked him if he could crack the watch open again, I just had to know if the dial was glued to the movement or not...I wouldn't be able to sleep tonight not knowing. So he agreed and opened up the watch & removed the dial. It was NOT glued the dial, the feet were at 2:30 & 7:30 and it fit the 3035 movement perfectly. But this guy was still not convinced and turned it over, looks at the back, and says with some sort of gratification, "It's not a SINGER dial"...somehow indicating that it wasn't authentic. I told him I don't think the 16800 came with SINGER dials...so that wasn't any indication for me that it might not be authentic. The back of the dial had no writing on it other than a numerical code right above the hole for the hands. He then proceeds to get out some "aftermarket" (non genuine redials) 1680 dials to compare mine with. He tells me to look at the writing on the fake 1680 dials and notice how crisp & bold the text is and how the text paint is raised from the dial and not flatter like my dial. I just couldn't understand how he could compare my dial to some rep 1680 dials and tell me they were better. So, to the gen 16800 owners, please look at the pics following pics of my 16800 and tell me your thoughts. I know these pics aren't the greatest but they are all that I have at the moment as I'm at work. I can get some more up later. What do your dials look like? Any thoughts/details would be appreciated.

Nice piece. That watch has a pure vintage look, what a score! Wear it well.

From the pics, it looks good to me.

GREAT STUFF!!! :D

The Nikon D60 is a nice entry level Digital SLR...and it's about the same price I paid for my D40 last year. And nice watch too...