Serial # or Case-back Stamp

[s1nn3d]

Hi all! :)

A simple question. Which one is the more definitive and/or acceptable proof of production date of a Rolex watch, especially a vintage Rolex timepiece? It's serial number? Or the year stamped on its case-back?

Regarding serial numbers. There are a couple charts that show different serial number ranges corresponding to each year as shown in this link http://www.oysterinfo.de/en/detailin...mern/index.php.
Which one is widely accepted?

All comments would be much appreciated. :)

[Paul]

A case serial number only provides a loose idea as to when the case was made.
A caseback number tells you the exact quarter and year that the caseback was made.


If I was wanting a vintage Rolex from a specific time period, I'd focus on the caseback date stamp.
That tells me that at least some of my watch was manufactured in the time spot that's significant to me.

All the serial number resources have their vagaries but I like this one ....

http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/numbers.html

[Andad]

The s/n between the lugs is the s/n of the case and from this you can get an idea of when the watch was made.
The date on the caseback dates the caseback but who knows when it was screwed on?

[s1nn3d]

Originally Posted by Paul

A case serial number only provides a loose idea as to when the case was made.
A caseback number tells you the exact quarter and year that the caseback was made.


If I was wanting a vintage Rolex from a specific time period, I'd focus on the caseback date stamp.
That tells me that at least some of my watch was manufactured in the time spot that's significant to me.

All the serial number resources have their vagaries but I like this one ....

http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/numbers.html

I'm inclined to follow the caseback date stamp considering it shows a specific year even though a case-back could easily be switched.

Moreover, I was told that case-back stamp and the serial # are not engraved at the same time. The case-back being stamped earlier than serial #, hence the serial # being a more accurate indicator of production year.

[s1nn3d]

Originally Posted by directioneng

The s/n between the lugs is the s/n of the case and from this you can get an idea of when the watch was made.
The date on the caseback dates the caseback but who knows when it was screwed on?

This is where the quandary arises, at least to me. In the absence of a paper document that states production date of a Rolex watch, would you rely on an time period 'idea' provided by the serial #? Or the date on the case back which doesn't necessarily matches the date the watch was assembled/produced?

Both indicators has its flaws. Hence which one is more acceptable to you?

[Tools]

Originally Posted by s1nn3d

This is where the quandary arises, at least to me. In the absence of a paper document that states production date of a Rolex watch, would you rely on an time period 'idea' provided by the serial #? Or the date on the case back which doesn't necessarily matches the date the watch was assembled/produced?

Both indicators has its flaws. Hence which one is more acceptable?

You're looking at this all wrong..

The various charts around have been made up of original sales documents and the stamp inside the case-back for the 55-73 models.. None of them are from any actual "production" or "manufacturing" data..

It's simple research to give collectors some data points to be able to "approximate" the age of their time-pieces and covers a very wide span, which is to be used when you do not have any actual in-hand data.

Anybody who uses any of these estimates as an actual or even accurate manufacturing date is fooling themselves...

The community has chosen to accept this research (most charts are based on the Dowling-Hess: Best of Time ,data) regardless of the fact it could be a year or two in either direction..

[s1nn3d]

Originally Posted by Tools

You're looking at this all wrong..

The various charts around have been made up of original sales documents and the stamp inside the case-back for the 55-73 models.. None of them are from any actual "production" or "manufacturing" data..

It's simple research to give collectors some data points to be able to "approximate" the age of their time-pieces and covers a very wide span, which is to be used when you do not have any actual in-hand data.

Anybody who uses any of these estimates as an actual or even accurate manufacturing date is fooling themselves...

The community has chosen to accept this research (most charts are based on the Dowling-Hess: Best of Time ,data) regardless of the fact it could be a year or two in either direction..

That's exactly my point, Tools. The s/n charts and the case-back stamp has its respective flaws to be a clear cut proof of manufacture date. Hence my question, in the absence of a document that states production date, which source is more indicative or acceptable? The serial number or the case-back stamp?

[Darlinboy]

I'd go with the case back, but would want the serial to reasonably match it. Again, not exact, but close enough for me.

[Paul]

Back in the day, certified chronometers were sold with a document detailing the date when each factory test was performed on the watch.

Historically, the AD also dated and (sometimes) rubber stamped the watch's papers on the date of sale. I think this still happens today (?).

In a perfect world, a full set B & P vintage Rolex for sale today, might have all these dates falling neatly within a few months of each other.

Any delays in the manufacturing / testing process though or even if the completed watch just sat for a few months (or years) in the Rolex store room or in the AD's display case ...... and any line up of dates goes completely out the window.

The closest I ever got to a birth year Rolex was when a stunning gilt Sub - with my exact DOB on the papers - sold on eBay last year. Not to me though

[s1nn3d]

Originally Posted by s1nn3d

That's exactly my point, Tools. The s/n charts and the case-back stamp has its respective flaws, not to be a clear cut proof of manufacture date. Hence my question, in the absence of a document that states production date, which source is more indicative or acceptable? The serial number or the case-back stamp?

fixed

[s1nn3d]

Originally Posted by Darlinboy

I'd go with the case back, but would want the serial to reasonably match it. Again, not exact, but close enough for me.

Indeed. You want all those 'indicators' to be reasonably period correct.

[s1nn3d]

Originally Posted by Paul

Back in the day, certified chronometers were sold with a document detailing the date when each factory test was performed on the watch.

Historically, the AD also dated and (sometimes) rubber stamped the watch's papers on the date of sale. I think this still happens today (?).

In a perfect world, a full set B & P vintage Rolex for sale today, might have all these dates falling neatly within a few months of each other.

Any delays in the manufacturing / testing process though or even if the completed watch just sat for a few months (or years) in the Rolex store room or in the AD's display case ...... and any line up of dates goes completely out the window.

The closest I ever got to a birth year Rolex was when a stunning gilt Sub - with my exact DOB on the papers - sold on eBay last year. Not to me though

This is my dilemma right now. I am looking for a birth year watch... 1971 to be exact. There's this lovely piece complete with b and p. The seller says its manufacture date is 1972 based on its serial which is 3037xxxx. The case back stamp indicates 3rd quarter 1971. And the purchase date is July 1973.

So, if you are in my shoes, would you consider it as a 1971 watch based on the case-back stamp (not exact)? Or a 1972 watch based on the serial number (not exact again)? Or would you rather base it on the documented purchase date which makes it a 1973 watch.

[Paul]

If you were really lucky, you might find a B & P watch with all dates reading or lining up to 1971.

Or, perhaps you could seek out watches where 1971 features as the date the AD sold the watch.

It's not a perfect science but you'll know for certain that your watch was made in 1971 ..... or certainly no later than 1971.

Here's a pic poached from VRF. If I owned that watch I'd be happy to regard it as a '1971' watch

[s1nn3d]

Originally Posted by Paul

If you were really lucky, you might find a B & P watch with all dates reading or lining up to 1971.

Or, perhaps you could seek out watches where 1971 features as the date the AD sold the watch.

It's not a perfect science but you'll know for certain that your watch was made in 1971 ..... or certainly no later than 1971.

Here's a pic poached from VRF. If I owned that watch I'd be happy to regard it as a '1971' watch

Indeed it's not a perfect science. Hence you want something tangible, if not concrete proof. And in your scenario, you chose the purchase date which is documented and definitive. And like you said, given the paper, "you'll know for certain that your watch was made in 1971 ..... or certainly no later than 1971."

Pretty good logic and reasoning!

So given my case, does it suffice to say, you will consider it as a 1973 watch?

Now, what if there's no box and papers.. how will you consider the manufacture date of a watch?

[Paul]

Kinda like if I bought a brand new car this weekend. The salesman and I both know the engine or the trans or the body may have been made at least a year ago. For me though, the sale papers would be stamped 2012, so forever more it's a 2012 car.

I'm not a B & P man really but if I was you, the 1973 thing would bug me.

Oh, and where there's no B & P with a watch, I'd consider the case back number. I do know though that some other folk consider the serial number a more important date reference. It's a personal thing really

[s1nn3d]

Originally Posted by Paul

Kinda like if I bought a brand new car this weekend. The salesman and I both know the engine or the transmission or the body may have been made at least a year ago.

For me though, the sale papers would be stamped 2012, so forever more it's a 2012 car.

I'm not a B & P man really but if I was you, the 1973 thing would bug me

Interesting analogy. I like it!

[The Fretking]

Contemplating all this, it occurred to me that the case back stamp would be a more accurate indicator of the actual date of the watch production. Why would Rolex go to the trouble of recording the quarter in which only the back was made? I'd guess the stamping is to indicate the date of the watch as a whole, because, really, of what importance is knowing only when the back was made?

[s1nn3d]

Originally Posted by The Fretking

Contemplating all this, it occurred to me that the case back stamp would be a more accurate indicator of the actual date of the watch production. Why would Rolex go to the trouble of recording the quarter in which only the back was made? I'd guess the stamping is to indicate the date of the watch as a whole, because, really, of what importance is knowing only when the back was made?

Good point.

[XanderHook]

My 5513 has the case back stamp IV67. I have no papers, but considers this to be a 68 watch as unlikely to have been sold immediately after leaving the factory...

[HiBoost]

I'm bringing this back instead of starting my own thread with the same topic. The above comments seem to conclude that the caseback stamp is more reliable than the serial number (though neither should be considered exact). However, in another thread I read about how a large number of casebacks were engraved at the same time and used over a multiyear period. "72" casebacks were found on milsubs for several years following that is what they were saying.

I'm in the same boat of wanting to find a birthyear piece ('74 in my case) so I'm trying to figure out the best way to ensure this.

The OP raised one interesting question - do you look at the caseback date, serial number or sale date. Since we are going for something that matches our birth year then you'd ideally want something that relates to when the watch was completed, not when it was sold. If I buy a 2011 model car today I don't tell people I own a 2012, it's a 2011 forever. So the date the watch was sold seems the least important. Likewise, if I was conceived in 1973 but born in 1974 I still focus on the 1974 part. Based on my datapoint from above it seems like the caseback could be more of a "conceived" indicator there a completed indicator.

Who knows, lots to think about though! :-)

[DrLindaPhD]

Depends on the models too. The Oysters all have a case number assigned to a year of manufacture and that listing is published in one of the Rolex books that I have. So, it all depends.

[Fredrik]

If I was going to get a birthyear Rolex the only thing that would not annoy me would be a watch with a serial number in the correct range, a correct caseback stamp and original sales papers from the same year.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

. . .

I'm in the same boat of wanting to find a birthyear piece ('74 in my case) so I'm trying to figure out the best way to ensure this.

The OP raised one interesting question - do you look at the caseback date, serial number or sale date. Since we are going for something that matches our birth year then you'd ideally want something that relates to when the watch was completed, not when it was sold. If I buy a 2011 model car today I don't tell people I own a 2012, it's a 2011 forever. So the date the watch was sold seems the least important. Likewise, if I was conceived in 1973 but born in 1974 I still focus on the 1974 part. Based on my datapoint from above it seems like the caseback could be more of a "conceived" indicator there a completed indicator.

Who knows, lots to think about though! :-)

I don't know that I would turn such a quest into an obsession.. Some things are simply not going to be absolute.

As to your analogy, 2013 cars are available right now for purchase and have been for months.. However, the cars will forever be known as "2013", even though it's pretty clear that they were made in 2012; perhaps as early as 2011 and awaited shipping until mid 2012.

If I was looking for a "birthyear" watch, I would want tangible proof that I could look at and feel comfortable with. In the case of the 55 through 73 watches, that would be the case back stamp. Since no other years have that, I would use the purchase date for my "proof" for those (here I could convince myself that the watch was actually made a year earlier if that's the example I found) . Finally, if the watch had none of those, I would use the "Internet charts" and convince myself that that was close enough.

[HiBoost]

That's interesting, so the 1974 datejusts won't have a caseback stamp?

Sent from my Droid DNA via Tapatalk

[springer]

I would agree with Larry that for a birth year watch, I would look at the case back. Serial numbers are an estimate for the production date of the watch.

[HiBoost]

But he made it sound like that only went up through 73?

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2

[harry in montreal]

i am fascinated with some tudor subs that bear the serial number onthe caseback. this always made me wonder if they had a special use upon issue.

[964RS]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

But he made it sound like that only went up through 73?

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2

One thing is for sure. If you are looking for a 74 watch you are never going to be able to determine it by the caseback.

They stopped dating them in 72.

I think you will find the mass majority of vintage collectors will date their watch by the serial number. Casebacks were not produced for the specific case and added at completion so could be from anytime up to completion.

Serial numbers may not be an exact science but it's pretty hard to beat and more precise than casebacks. There are some very detailed serial number databases that came via Rolex, sadly they are not generally shared with the masses....confidentiality and all that ;)

Rolex certainly know when a watch was produced and it's 'birth' is based on the serial number not caseback or date of sale.

It is a bit like the VIN number in a car - the manufacturer knows when this is exactly according to their records...not when the dealer sold it.

That said if I was looking for a birth year watch without papers I would be looking for a serial in the known 'range' as manufacturer birth date, then caseback.

If it came with issued punched/stamped papers then I'd also accept the date on these as it's public birth date (even if serial is year or two earlier).

Just my 2p.....

Both are nice to have.

[jeff hess]

Tools, Springer and 964RS are on the right track. In our book , we used dating from backs of cases, Rolexes advertising, patent resaerch and number of Victories claims on the inside back of watches to put together a timeline. But rule number one in the field of historical research (especially with Rolex) is the never say never and never ever say a;ways. Rolex, did some very odd things and in the early days, they were a tad haphazard. Great thread. Jeffrey P. Hess