Thoughts on this "neo" vintage 16800 ?

[mrvang]

Dear all,

Rookie in the world of vintage Rolex watches.
Looking to buy this rather handsome 16800 from 1989.

Personally I would say I think it looks amazing, but I also know I dont have the expertise to see potential "red flags" in regards to re-lumed dial, replacement hands etc.

Therefore, any comments would be highly appreciated.

[Arnozerosix]

In a nutshell...from what we can see from the pics...

Hands have been changed...
Dial and bezel original...
watch has been polished...

[swish77]

Well, it wouldn't be a 16800 from 1989. Presumably it's a 168000 or even a 16610. What is the beginning of the serial number? You'd also want to see the inside of the caseback and/or engravings to confirm.

As for the condition, tough to tell for sure because of the small photos, but the hands are most likely replaced, as mentioned above. Note the patina difference compared to the dial. Can't really tell the full condition of the dial, but looks to have nice patina. Make sure you see the dial in detail and at different angles. These early gloss dials can age poorly, with cracking, spotting, etc ....

The case looks great, and might be unpolished or only lightly touched up. The crown guards are very strong.

Here's my 1986 168000 as a comparison.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by mrvang

Dear all,

Rookie in the world of vintage Rolex watches.
Looking to buy this rather handsome 16800 from 1989.

Personally I would say I think it looks amazing, but I also know I dont have the expertise to see potential "red flags" in regards to re-lumed dial, replacement hands etc.

Therefore, any comments would be highly appreciated.

Good looking watch in excellent condition.

I wouldn't say that anything has been changed on it. I would echo that you confirm what you have with the numbers.

[Dan S]

It certainly has the appearance of replacement hands, possibly luminova. UV shots would be definitive. Please post photos from between the lugs.

[Jawnz]

Just because the patina is different on the hands doesn’t necessarily make them replacement or service hands. Here is my 19844 16800.

[mrvang]

Really appreciate everyones input, if in fact they are replacement hands, thats gonna be a deal breaker. Really want a original watch. Will ask for lume shots.
Also, I’ve added a few more pictures!

Thanks everyone,

[HERITAGE82]

I doubt that hands are luminova since they have a slight tint to them. I believe they are original to the watch just aging a bit different.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by mrvang

Really appreciate everyones input, if in fact they are replacement hands, thats gonna be a deal breaker. Really want a original watch. Will ask for lume shots.
Also, I’ve added a few more pictures!

Thanks everyone,

It is clear that the watch has been refurbished for sale, and it appears to be a very good job.

It is not possible to know if all parts are original, only that the parts are consistent with the era of the watch.

Hands and dials are not made along side each other, they aren't even made by the same shop. There is often a slight difference in aging. Some folks spend a lot of money to color-match their parts for nothing more than aesthetics but still claim "originality", something very difficult to prove.

[mrvang]

Wow, that patina is perfect !
Looks fantastic

Originally Posted by swish77

Well, it wouldn't be a 16800 from 1989. Presumably it's a 168000 or even a 16610. What is the beginning of the serial number? You'd also want to see the inside of the caseback and/or engravings to confirm.

As for the condition, tough to tell for sure because of the small photos, but the hands are most likely replaced, as mentioned above. Note the patina difference compared to the dial. Can't really tell the full condition of the dial, but looks to have nice patina. Make sure you see the dial in detail and at different angles. These early gloss dials can age poorly, with cracking, spotting, etc ....

The case looks great, and might be unpolished or only lightly touched up. The crown guards are very strong.

Here's my 1986 168000 as a comparison.

[mrvang]

Appreciate the feedback!

When you say "refurbished" do you mean polished ?

Originally Posted by Tools

It is clear that the watch has been refurbished for sale, and it appears to be a very good job.

It is not possible to know if all parts are original, only that the parts are consistent with the era of the watch.

Hands and dials are not made along side each other, they aren't even made by the same shop. There is often a slight difference in aging. Some folks spend a lot of money to color-match their parts for nothing more than aesthetics but still claim "originality", something very difficult to prove.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by mrvang

Wow, that patina is perfect !
Looks fantastic

Thanks. As I said, the example you're looking at probably has replaced hands. I'm not in the camp of "dial and hands can age differently." I'm not saying it never happens, but it's rare from what I've seen and it's usually a subtle difference in patina, not an obvious one. It's often used as an excuse (or selling tactic).

A UV photo will almost always tell you whether hands have been changed, altered, color-matched, etc .... so, I'd encourage you to get one.

Also, what is the beginning of the serial number of the watch? The year (1989) does not match up with a 16800.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by mrvang

Appreciate the feedback!

When you say "refurbished" do you mean polished ?

To me "polished" means shiny, as in polished and is really misused on the Forum - it's become an almost meaningless term.

The bracelet and case have been "refinished". The rest of the watch has been overhauled to likely mean a clean, oil, and lube, although you can't readily see that.

"Refurbished" means dial, hands, insert, and other cosmetics cleaned or replaced, movement serviced, and case and bracelet fixed and refinished.

[mrvang]

Wow, thats interesting,
Ill surely ask the seller in regards to the reference number not adding up to the year 1989.
He even says it has the original certificate and handtag. seems strange if the certificate actual states its a ref "16800" from 1989.

Originally Posted by swish77

Thanks. As I said, the example you're looking at probably has replaced hands. I'm not in the camp of "dial and hands can age differently." I'm not saying it never happens, but it's rare from what I've seen and it's usually a subtle difference in patina, not an obvious one. It's often used as an excuse (or selling tactic).

A UV photo will almost always tell you whether hands have been changed, altered, color-matched, etc .... so, I'd encourage you to get one.

Also, what is the beginning of the serial number of the watch? The year (1989) does not match up with a 16800.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by mrvang

Wow, thats interesting,
Ill surely ask the seller in regards to the reference number not adding up to the year 1989.
He even says it has the original certificate and handtag. seems strange if the certificate actual states its a ref "16800" from 1989.

The sale date is often different than the age of the watch. The serial number is a better indicator of the age.

Also, note that even if the guarantee paper says it's a 16800, it could actually be a 168000. You'd need to see the reference number engraving between the lugs to confirm, along with the inside of the caseback.

[mrvang]

Well noted, thanks alot!
Will ask seller to check the serial for sure..

Would be kinda cool if in fact it were a 168000.

Lets see :)

Originally Posted by swish77

The sale date is often different than the age of the watch. The serial number is a better indicator of the age.

Also, note that even if the guarantee paper says it's a 16800, it could actually be a 168000. You'd need to see the reference number engraving between the lugs to confirm, along with the inside of the caseback.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by mrvang

. . .

Would be kinda cool if in fact it were a 168000.

Lets see :)

I agree. They are almost indistinguishable. The 168000 used the future 16610 904L SS case and the previous 16800, 3035 movement. A combination only used for a year or so.

[TuRo]

The hands might be pre-2000 Tritium service, but if you look at the upside down later photo of the watch final bit of Tritium handset closest to pinion is quite dark, so could be original. To be honest a uv test is going to be inconclusive as 34 yr old (89) and say 23 yr old Tritium (latest Tritium service handsets where doled out) both will be both practically dead to UV by now.
They do not look like Luminova though to me.

[karleone]

Originally Posted by mrvang

Really appreciate everyones input, if in fact they are replacement hands, thats gonna be a deal breaker. Really want a original watch. Will ask for lume shots.
Also, I’ve added a few more pictures!

Thanks everyone,

I would be bothered by the difference in patina from hands and indices. Plus the watch has been repolished. The work on lugs is great but the chamfers are completely gone. That’s a deal breaker for me.

[Watcheric]

I agree, the watch has been refinished to look passable from afar but the chamfers are absent.

[swish77]

Keep in mind that the chamfers on these early sapphire Subs are very subtle. I actually think that case looks pretty good, and the crown guards look virtually untouched.

Here's a shot of my 168000, which I'm fairly confident is unpolished or perhaps lightly touched up. The lugs have just a slight chamfer.

[Arnozerosix]

Originally Posted by swish77

Keep in mind that the chamfers on these early sapphire Subs are very subtle. I actually think that case looks pretty good, and the crown guards look virtually untouched.

Here's a shot of my 168000, which I'm fairly confident is unpolished or perhaps lightly touched up. The lugs have just a slight chamfer.

Do not feel offended, buts this watch is not unpolished....
lug have been polished...

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Arnozerosix

Do not feel offended, buts this watch is not unpolished....
lug have been polished...

Not offended at all. As I said, perhaps lightly touched up. I’m not the original owner. Thanks for your opinion.

[hutch300]

I have a 1989 5513 that has the hands with very similar difference in aging. I did a ton of research and these hands around this time often age lighter than the dials. Many people have opinions on this, I would not pass on a the watch over the hands. Very easily could be original to the watch.

[mrvang]

So, just wanted to bring this discussion alive again. The serial number between the lugs starts with 43.9XX, the hand tag and certificate matches the serial number. Looking at the serial number would make the watch from around year `75 - `76 - Which doesnt make any sense looking at the watch and specially the white gold indices on the dial. I've had two official Rolex boutiques look at the watch and movement, and they say nothing looks off.. Is there any one that has experienced something similar before ?

[Jawnz]

Are you sure you’re matching correct serial number ranges to years? Either your year charts are wrong or something else much worse is going on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TuRo]

Service case perhaps ?

[watchmaniacgollumfox]

that "neo" vintage 16800 from '89 is looking slick as hell. But I feel you on not having the eagle eyes to spot any potential red flags like re-lumed dials or replaced hands.

[mrvang]

I've used below:

https://www.swisswatchexpo.com/rolex-serial-numbers/
https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-serial-numbers

Originally Posted by Jawnz

Are you sure you’re matching correct serial number ranges to years? Either your year charts are wrong or something else much worse is going on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrvang]

Well, I dont think I have, tbh.
However, im more concerned about the "strange" serial number, not really matching with the rest of the package.

Originally Posted by watchmaniacgollumfox

that "neo" vintage 16800 from '89 is looking slick as hell. But I feel you on not having the eagle eyes to spot any potential red flags like re-lumed dials or replaced hands.