1016 Explorer Frankens: Why not a 16000 case?

[lhooq]

I recently bought a 16000-series case (for $66!) so I could put together a Datejust franken. However, I'm still waiting for a few parts to come in, so I've had this case sitting on my desk for the last month. And the more I looked at it, the more I started thinking about Explorers. (Naturally.) Specifically, I wondered how it would look with a Tropic 22, and a spare jmb bezel I had in my parts drawer.

Years ago, Stilty (with whom all 1016 franken goodness begins) took a look at several Datejust cases and found the 162xx series to be the closest match to the genuine 1016. Compared to the 16xx Datejust, the 162xx has the thicker lugs and the improved caseback design that's more like a 1016's. The downside, in my opinion, was that the lug profile is harsher and more trapezoidal than the gentle curves of a 1016. Nevertheless, my Space-Dweller was built on a 1601 and -slender lugs aside- it's a very credible 1016 on the wrist. Just to cover my bases, Explorer #4 was based on a 16203. Its bulk gives it a closer resemblance to the 1016, overall, but the "shrugged shoulders" lugs (as automatico would put it) mark it out as a more modern design.

(I guess this is the point where I say that these are all details that NOBODY will notice unless they've got your watch in hand and are looking at it up close. Preferably with a gen to compare it to!)

So why not a 16xxx? It's like a mix between the 16xx and the later 162xx. The lugs of this 16014 are a bit thicker than the 1601's--by 0.5mm at the center of the case. And compared to the 16203, the tops of the 16014's lugs have that gentle curve seen on older Rolex designs. Finally, while I didn't photograph the casebacks, I can say that the 16014's has a greater resemblance to the 1016's caseback than the others do.

It's not a perfect match with the 1016, but... Let's go to the photo comparison:

It's looking good for the 16014.

Another feature that I wanted to check was the rehaut. The depth and profile of the 16203's rehaut is spot-on with the 1016's, while the 1601's is noticeably shallower. From left to right is a 1016, 16203, 1601, and the 16014:

Pardon the stand-in dial! The 16014's rehaut isn't as deep as the 16203's, but it has a more vertical profile than the 1601. A pretty good compromise, all things considered.

Am I missing something that disqualifies the 16xxx from the "Best 1016 Impersonator" contest?

[slickdick]

Good comparison.

IMO all cases are plausible. It is hard to compare since some cases look like they have been polished once or twice.

[automatico]

"I recently bought a 16000-series case (for $66!) so I could put together a Datejust franken. However, I'm still waiting for a few parts to come in, so I've had this case sitting on my desk for the last month. And the more I looked at it, the more I started thinking about Explorers. (Naturally). Specifically, I wondered how it would look with a Tropic 22, and a spare jmb bezel I had in my parts drawer."

I have a 160xx and it will be the next '1016' project. The main difference in assembly is that a 3035 is about .4mm taller from the stem centerline to the top of the dial than a 3135 so the Eta etc will have to be 'thickened' somehow to work in a 160xx case compared to a 162xx case.

"So why not a 160xx? It's like a mix between the 16xx and the later 162xx. The lugs of this 16014 are a bit thicker than the 1601's--by 0.5mm at the center of the case. And compared to the 16203, the tops of the 16014's lugs have that gentle curve seen on older Rolex designs. Finally, while I didn't photograph the casebacks, I can say that the 16014's has a greater resemblance to the 1016's caseback than the others do."

I agree the 160xx is closer to a 1016 than a 162xx and I really think the 160xx is a better choice...and they usually cost less than a 162xx.

Someting else...I bet the 6.0mm crown on a 5.3mm tube on a 162xx is not as rugged as a 6.0mm crown mounted on a regular 6.0mm tube on a 160xx because the little skinny 5.3 tube looks like it would be easier to knock off in a plane crash, rodeo, bar fight etc. It's very small where it screws into the case.

"Another feature that I wanted to check was the rehaut. The depth and profile of the 16203's rehaut is spot-on with the 1016's, while the 1601's is noticeably shallower."

The 'pie pan' dials on 1601/3 etc were an attempt to make the watches appear to be thinner like the 'pie pan' dial Omega Constellations of the same era. Since the center of the dial and the hands were mounted higher in the case, maybe they could use a shallower 'rehaut' than the 1016 with a flat dial. This is one good reason why the 160xx is a better case for a 1016 project than a 1600 case....and the 160xx has a 6.0mm case tube where the 162xx uses a 5.3mm tube with the goofy 5.3/6.0mm combo crown.

"The 16014's rehaut isn't as deep as the 16203's, but it has a more vertical profile than the 1601. A pretty good compromise, all things considered."

I agree 100%.

"Am I missing something that disqualifies the 16xxx from the "Best 1016 Impersonator" contest?"

Nope, ya hit da nail on da head.

[chiman12]

IMO...the 1601 would be good for certain generation of 1016 and the 16xxx better for others...I don't think that the answer is as simple as "this case" will be perfect for all 1016 builds. Research...research...research....

[alligoat]

The biggest advantage to using the 16014 case is that a 2846-2 will readily fit in there with an adaptor ring. This gives you a slow beat which is consistent with the vintage 1016's 1570 motor.

But I'm very happy with my 1601 case build and the 2824-2 that I put in there. I think of it as an upgraded motor for a vintage 1016!

[praetor]

lucky you for getting a 16000 case set cheap. I've been trying to source a caseback for my 1600 for a month and haven't found any for less than $100. One thing to note is that I found out that 1 16000 case back fits a 1601, but that was after I missed out the one that was sold on ebay for cheap =(. I think for a 1960s 1016, a 1601 is a better case though. Every single Rolex model I've seen in the early 60s have a thin mid case.

[jmb]

M, thanks for posting "the stack"! After looking at all of these I'm thinking my new rep cases made specifically for a 2824 stack up pretty nicely!

It won't be long...

[lhooq]

automatico: I always appreciate your insight! I've always wondered about that switch to a 5.3mm tube, though. Oversupply at one of the Rolex warehouses? My 16203-based Explorer actually has a 6mm tube, following modifications by jmb. But that was due to an order screwup by a seller that rhymes with 'jeweler's fools', not because I was that obsessed with accuracy and rodeo robustness.

I do agree that any of these cases will make a good 1016, but I find it fascinating how the basic Oyster case changes shape depending on the model, and evolves over time--usually in a non-linear fashion. For example, I've found that the 6610 mid-case more closely resembles the 14270, than it does its immediate successor, the 1016. But my 16014 will remain a Datejust, hopefully to be finished by mid-July.

Justin: Now that looks really promising. Good crown position, nice curves on the lugs... and I assume it takes a genuine crystal? Are those holes pre-drilled?

[ubiquitous]

I have to say... One of the things that I really like about my 1601 based 1016 is the thin profile case. Maybe not the most accurate, but the profile/curvature of the lugs really conforms to the wrist.

[jmb]

M, no, I had to "install" the holes myself and since I put a Clarks on it I assume it would take a gen. I have one of these cases drilled with the "big" holes, crystal and bezel installed, just waiting...

[lhooq]

R: Yup, I love the slim fit of the 1601, especially when it's combined with a skinny riveted bracelet. It feels completely different to a 1990s Datejust on solid links.

J: I don't know how much each of those cases cost you, but I think one would make a great base for a low-cost Explorer build. I imagine $250 (the same as a Trusty 1016) would get you far, though the tricky part would be a good dial.

[automatico]

"I always appreciate your insight!"

Thanks!

Now I favor the 160xx over a 1600 or 162xx because:

1...They are close to a 1016 in appearance and usually cheaper than a 162xx.

2...My spare 1603 case is too rusty to use.

2...I already have a 160xx.

Subject to change of course...

"I've always wondered about that switch to a 5.3mm tube, though. Oversupply at one of the Rolex warehouses? My 16203-based Explorer actually has a 6mm tube, following modifications by jmb. But that was due to an order screwup by a seller that rhymes with 'jeweler's fools', not because I was that obsessed with accuracy and rodeo robustness."

I figure they went to the 5.3mm tube with 6.0mm crown so all dressy gent's rolex models...DJ, OPD, OP, AK, XI, etc could use the same machine tools and parts for the case tubes. Just use 5.3mm OD crowns on smaller watches and 6.0mm OD crowns on larger watches.

This way they can make a new DJ for $392.15 instead of $392.35 (including box/paps).