bruce79 Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Not gen. Hard to be sure about the printing quality based on your pic, but the markers at 6 & 9 are much too wide & the crown looks funky, so the dial is either aftermarket or a poorly done relume (not done by Rolex). I would also agree that the DW is probably wrong for that model/vintage. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Here's a reference: I can see what the watchmaker is saying about the crispness of the dial print and DW, but I can't see what freddy is saying about the markers at 6 and 9. Much better macro pics are definitely called for here. My guess would be gen dial with the dial print issue being due to the normal variations for which Rolex has been famous. Notice also that your CGs seem pointier than those pictured above also. And how could a non-gen dial have feet in the correct location for the 3035 without any signs of modification on the underside? As to whether it's a relume or retouch... who knows. I doubt it, but that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce79 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Not gen. Hard to be sure about the printing quality based on your pic, but the markers at 6 & 9 are much too wide & the crown looks funky, so the dial is either aftermarket or a poorly done relume (not done by Rolex). I would also agree that the DW is probably wrong for that model/vintage. Sorry. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 I have never seen 1 with such wide markers (including 'maxi' dials), but, with Rolex, I guess anything is possible so you may be right. I stand corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce79 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 The dial on my gen 1680 says Beyler- it's c. 1978. I don't recall what the 16800 dial on my franken says on the back, but I guarantee it wasn't Singer- it may have #'s like you mentioned. Your dial is fine J, the crown is tall and correct, just like Chief's pic and both of my matte dials, print is fine, markers look good. If it's changing colors- fading to brown, so be it, it's not unheard of- it is 27+ years old. Sorry for the bad pic- gen left, franken right with relumed gen dial. BTW, I'm not aware of any fake 16800 matte dials out there. It may happen this year, but don't hold your breath. That only leaves relumed dials- but if yours doesn't glow, you can rule that out also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilty Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 The black portion of the matte dial (though difficult to see in the above pics) has taken on a brownish hue... Hmmmm.... a chocolate dial! I wouldn't complain about that! A bonus in my opinion. Good to hear you found a tritium insert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 I agree on the chocolate brown dial color... indeed a bonus. Hopefully you can find some tritium hands that fit. It's a nice piece, and genuine through and through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce79 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 It looks like a redone Dial to me. The Markers are badly relumed but the Dial is maybe genuine. For a 16800 the Dial is not signed Singer more Beveler. Roles changed to them in the middle of the 70's. I have not seen any aftermarket 16800 Dial in all the years. The Datewheel is defenetly wrong. It must have open six and nine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolex001 Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Looks gen, but with no better pics it's more guessing than fact. Markers look good, maybe have been relumed as the 12 is a bit wobbly. Just to give you an idea - Singer was one out of seven known dial makers. On most fake dials, the printers stamp or engrave Singer in the back - so Singers are the most common fakes. There are also Beyeler fakes - if yo ucan get a pic from the dial back side it will be easy to identify as gen or fake. Some makers only used number codes indeed during some periods. Just because there is no Singer stamp doesn't mean it is fake. Hold the watch under a very strong (like 500W) lamp or optimally under a Sodium-gas lamp. While there keep your eyes shut and after a few secs go see a completely dark room - what do you see? Probably the hands make this not work as they will glow extremely bright due to their SL coating. @ Tribal - take a look at ND Trading site - http://ndtradingcorp.com/zen/index.php?mai...products_id=158 - there are 16800 and even 16660 rdials, but they are as most of their dials, poor attempts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce79 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 I will not comment on gen or fake, there are better members with great knowledge to do that. In my opinion, there is nothing more difficult to judge as Rolex is not only having several makers but also does weird things during service. Having said that, I too would say it is relumed. Here are some pics of mine if it can help. I failed to capture the brownish tint of the dial ...here is the best I could do Silver date wheel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce79 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Well, Bruce, that is an interesting find on the 'equal' mark between 1000ft and 300m. Will have to check my two dials and I guess I'll have to look at the 16800 gloss dial just for grins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Rolex never cease to amaze me. Everything is so "possible" with this brand that is as fun as trying to guess the murderer at the beginning of the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce79 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilty Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Hi Stephane... so is your DW the silver painted disc, not brushed? With the round top 3. I have to do some digging, but I think I have a silver painted disc kicking around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce79 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 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. That is pretty interesting because I think the 1680 dials that preceded it did not have the italicized =. I would have guessed that the italics were a carry-over into the 16800 from the earlier generation before modernizing to non-italicized dials. So, I guess that would make the version with italics a little rare? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce79 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 At least until the mid-90s, the NYC RSC (possibly others) provided in-house reluming services (I spent a summer working for a relative who was a Rolex-trained watchmaker & he learned how to do this at the RSC). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Hi Stephane... so is your DW the silver painted disc, not brushed? With the round top 3. I have to do some digging, but I think I have a silver painted disc kicking around. Oh no, it is brushed. Well what I understand by brushed is it carries "lines" ...sorry this is hard for a french speaking person. It is not "flat painted" at all. I failed to take really good pictures to show you all what I have here. But, in the flesh and under a loupe it's very clear .... If we ever get a blue sky back here, I'll try to shoot more photos which show what the watch trully look like. Here is a photo shot by the seller: 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.