Is there a different on the bezel assembly b/w lug holes and non lug hole 16610

[Erict719]

From what I saw the bezel seems to be thinner on a lughole version. But I am comparing with my wm9 bezel tho.

is there a different b/w the lughole version ? Or is the different just b/w gen and wm9?

[dan_189]

The difference is between a 16610 (which had holes and no holes 16610T) and 16800 which is earlier there are variations in the bezels. Someone else can explain the specific details.

[alligoat]

Rolex uses the same parts on a 16800 and 16610 bezel assembly. If the bezel is smoother on a 16800, that is probably because it's 30 years old and worn. Bezel inserts have also changed stylistically over the years but are still the same basic part size wise- no more tritium peartls and different font on the 4's for instance. The case of the 16610 changed when it went form lugholes- 16610, to no lugholes, 16610T. And rehaut engraving came in around 2008 or 9 on the T case.

[Erict719]

I checked I think the different thickness of the bezel is due to the different of 16610 and 14060

[dan_189]

I checked I think the different thickness of the bezel is due to the different of 16610 and 14060

Thats interesting so youre saying that the 14060 and the 16610 have different bezels?

[woof*]

Thats interesting so youre saying that the 14060 and the 16610 have different bezels?

Yes, the no date 14060 has a different size bezel, insert, and dial too. It's a whole different watch from a 16610.

[gavidoc]

16610 bezels have more defined teeth then a 16800 bezel. Same part but teeth depth is different.

14060 bezels are slightly thicker and are smaller in diameter then a 16610.