has anyone ever seen this day date reference, 18118? need advice...

[BarkMaster]

If I ever see one of these with the matching bracelet, I am going to pass out.

(shortly before I write a big check!!!)

[onkyo]

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

Don't feel bad Pav, it was all new to all of us.


BTW, you can call me by my first name.........Mr.

Thank you Mr. Idle....

[Idle Swede]

Originally Posted by onkyo

Thank you Mr. Idle....

[tudorman8276]

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

And your wife still believes you got it from a public bath room?

...I actually have a prescription slip for a shingles shot!

...looks like I better get it! I just got the pneumonia shot....so, why not the shingles one....

[springer]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

----------

Well, cr*p. I usually do not ask for advice and trust my own research.

To top it off, I always err on the side of a watch being correct when it looks correct even when the "experts" diss it. As you saw on this board, several said the ref number did not exist. (Any comments Springer? (just kidding)

And to really top it off, it was offered to me for 3k. Freaking 3k.

This watch must be worth a small fortune as they must have made very very few of them.

Swede, any idea of how many?

Jeff (dang)

As I said in an earlier post, one should never say never in the world of research. Rolex made a lot of watches that never caught on and therfore few exist. And Rolex, especially in the early years would mix and match jsut about anything to sell a watch. So those who say "never" are, as a friend once told me "intellectually lazy". (and boy do I feel dumb...)

A few days ago, I contacted my 'hook" at the RSC here and they said the same thing. No such model number. Of course we all know that Rolex is not "all knowing," as I've caught them before on some counterfeit pieces.

I did say, it might be a one-off though. Sounds like there might be more than one though.

[springer]

Stan, I can't find my last post to update, but as far as being a discontinued model and failing to show up in modern literature, I did some checking with the Master Catalogs from 1978 and 1980 and this model number is not listed in any of these vintage Rolex catalogs. Nothing on the 1811 either. Also, if you missed my other post, my contact at the RSC is also unfamiliar with this model number.

Interesting thread, interesting.

[BarkMaster]

Found another on leather from an auction site (looks older)

[LarryK]

Originally Posted by 777

Found another on leather from an auction site (looks older)

Pie- Pan dial, non quickset

[LarryK]

Originally Posted by freefly

And what about the "T" marked dial? Isn't that supposed to indicate tritium lume? I don't see any dots at the end of those sticks...

Look at the OP's first photos- you can see light
grey marks where the dots were before they
fell off. They were definitely there at one time.

[LarryK]

Originally Posted by onkyo

Great info from a great local guy!!

Thanks for posting Swede!

ps.... this is all new to me.

and I heard you visit my watchmaker friend around the corner
from where you work too- Isn't he the best ????

See you soon Pav!

[jeff hess]

This has to be one of the rarest DD's on the planet.

Now that we know what it is I found this on the net (on the NAWCC board!) posted by Richard Carver in 2002.

http://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?t=28527


Jeff, rare I tell ya

Not a one off, but they must have made a scant few. Wonder if the one mentioned above in this thread as having been seen on 47th street is the same one Sapphire now owns.

[jeff hess]

Oh and Springer, don't feel bad. There is not a year that goes by without a few calls from Rolex in New York (or other Rolex facilities) calling me to ask me a question about vintage Rolex.


From now on, I will tell them to just call Larry!


Jeff

[sapphire65]

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

It bothered me not knowing about this ref # so I decided to send my good friend LarryK in NY, (Who BTW is a living legend when it comes to DD's) an e-mail asking about it.

I figured if he doesn't know about this ref # then it doesn't exist.

I'll just paste his reply here, (with his permission) including a picture belonging to Christian.

Thanks Larry.


"Hi Pal:

Let me start from the beginning ...........

The 1811 was a "moiré " patterned version of a non-quick Day Date.
Not the Morellis finish - just a rough sort of randon finishon the lugs,
bezel, and center links- The Morellis had tiny lines in it- the "moiré "
finish was more just engraved random swirled dots.

18118 is the same watch in single quickset. When Rolex changed to
the 5 digit serial on the Day Date, they used the old four digit numbers
and just added the "8" on the end to signify 18k Gold- so, the regular
1803 became the 18038, diamond bezel 1804 became the 18048,
the Bark 1807 became the 18078, and so on.

Here is a "moiré " patterned 1811 that Christian shoved on VRF a few years ago....

http://www.fototime.com/%7BAD86D712-...gpict/1811.jpg

I have seen an 18118 in person on 47th street, the number is correct.
The watch was made in the late 1970's to the early 1980's.


BTW- The one "Sapphire65" shows on TRF had the finish removed from
the lugs.
It was polished off :)


Hope to see you again soon my friend!

Warm Regards
LarryK "

Idle Swede- Thank you very much for going the extra step and forwarding this to Larry K. This really sheds a lot of light. I had my doubts after different people had told me it did not exist. I guess the important thing here is not to assume something isn't real just because you don't see it every day. Also, modern reference material has a lot of gaps and omissions.

Thanks to Larry K as well...

This is what the collector community is all about!

Best regards,

sapphire65

[onkyo]

Originally Posted by LarryK

and I heard you visit my watchmaker friend around the corner
from where you work too- Isn't he the best ????

See you soon Pav!

Hi Larry.

To have a matchmaker less than 1 minute from my office is great!

I have used him a few times and he did excellent work.

Thank you again for introducing me to him.

Pav

[sapphire65]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

----------

That is the EXACT watch I was offered about a year ago! I swore it was correct but let a good friend (and an "expert on this board whom I asked about it) talk me out of it. Both said it was fake. I still felt it was right though and I guess I should have followed my sixth sense!

Jeff

Can I ask where you bought it?

Jeff- I bought this from a private collector. I liked it because it was
different than what I normally see.

sapphire65

[sapphire65]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

--------------

Oh great. Now I get it... I searched and searched the web, auction catalogues and every book I could find for that reference number! When I search for Moire on teh net I DO FIND a couple of references....but they put a slash mark after the first four number! doh!

This has to be one of the rarest day-dates on the planet.

Hey Sapphire, wanna sell it???

Jeff

Jeff- Not a chance, haha....

[tudorman8276]

Originally Posted by sapphire65

Idle Swede- Thank you very much for going the extra step and forwarding this to Larry K. This really sheds a lot of light. I had my doubts after different people had told me it did not exist. I guess the important thing here is not to assume something isn't real just because you don't see it every day. Also, modern reference material has a lot of gaps and omissions.

Thanks to Larry K as well...

This is what the collector community is all about!

Best regards,

sapphire65

...thanks for the EXTRA effort!

[springer]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Oh and Springer, don't feel bad. There is not a year that goes by without a few calls from Rolex in New York (or other Rolex facilities) calling me to ask me a question about vintage Rolex.


From now on, I will tell them to just call Larry!


Jeff

The RSC, as most know, are not a great source for historical information regarding their own watches. They are not a great source regarding counterfeit parts either. I've caught them one a couple occasions identifying something as genuine which was counterfeit.

Me, feel bad, I've been self-actualized for many days now - maybe years!!!!!!!!!!

What I do find as odd is the fact that nobody can find any documentation on a production watch from Rolex.

[LarryK]

Originally Posted by springer

The RSC, as most know, are not a great source for historical information regarding their own watches. They are not a great source regarding counterfeit parts either. I've caught them one a couple occasions identifying something as genuine which was counterfeit.

Me, feel bad, I've been self-actualized for many days now - maybe years!!!!!!!!!!

What I do find as odd is the fact that nobody can find any documentation on a production watch from Rolex.

When Rolex went to the 3055 (single quickset) movement in 1979, they
must have had some 1811 bezels and bracelets left over. My guess is
they made a few cases to match them and fit the new movement, gave
them a model number (18118) and sold them under that new number
When they ran out of bracelets, they didn't make any more. So, the
model number wouldn't be in any literature because Rolex did not intend
to continue it, they were simply using it to sell off old parts. What do
you think of my goofy theory Jeff ?

[springer]

Sounds like a theory to me too. To jump from point A to point B without any documentation is a tough call. I read some pretty wild threads on VFR all the time, and many of them are speculation also.

I find it extremely odd that there is nothing available anywhere on this model.

[jeff hess]

So, the
model number wouldn't be in any literature because Rolex did not intend
to continue it, they were simply using it to sell off old parts. What do
you think of my goofy theory Jeff ?

---------------------------

I think it makes perfect sense. And as most of you know, Rolex did some very goofy things in the past.

Mishmoshed (is that even a word?) cases with different ref numbers on the back than on the side, ref numbers that were "struck through" with a different ref. number added, the "wrong" bracelet with a certain case, the "wrong dial" etc.

This is what makes vintage watch collecting so much fun.

I bow to your expertise sir!

Jeff

[sapphire65]

Guys, Using Larry Ks info as clues, I went back through all my Rolex books and reference material (again) and, using "Moire Finish/Moire Bezel" as a lantern, found the reference number!

The watch is listed in Roy & Sherry Ehrhardt's "Vintage American & European Wrist Watch Price Guide, Book Two", published in 1988.

Both the 1811 and 18118 (Moire Bezel) reference numbers are listed in the Day Date President section, on page 294.

I have to thank Jeff for cautioning us all to "not rush to judgement" and reminding us that research is always an ongoing thing, especially with Rolex!

BTW, if you haven't seen this book (or forgot you still had it), it has by far the most comprehensive and complete listing I have ever seen. Maybe we should send a copy to the RSC...

Thanks again to everyone for helping!

sapphire65

[Idle Swede]

Finally, mystery solved.

Good for you sapphire.

[LarryK]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

So, the
model number wouldn't be in any literature because Rolex did not intend
to continue it, they were simply using it to sell off old parts. What do
you think of my goofy theory Jeff ?

---------------------------

I think it makes perfect sense. And as most of you know, Rolex did some very goofy things in the past.

Mishmoshed (is that even a word?) cases with different ref numbers on the back than on the side, ref numbers that were "struck through" with a different ref. number added, the "wrong" bracelet with a certain case, the "wrong dial" etc.

This is what makes vintage watch collecting so much fun.

I bow to your expertise sir!

Jeff

Please Jeff, I am a nepohyte compared to you and your knowledge.
I'm just a dopey guy from Brooklyn who happens to know a lot about
the least desireable vintage Rolex. You have been a wealth of information
to me and all Rolex collectors. I have tremendous respect for your
knowledge, and do not consider myself to even be in the same galaxy.

[BarkMaster]

Originally Posted by LarryK

Please Jeff, I am a nepohyte compared to you and your knowledge.
I'm just a dopey guy from Brooklyn who happens to know a lot about
the least desireable vintage Rolex. You have been a wealth of information to me and all Rolex collectors. I have tremendous respect for your
knowledge, and do not consider myself to even be in the same galaxy.

Very humble nod.

But least desirable???

I would love one!! I think Jeff makes 2!

[Idle Swede]

Don't be so modest Larry,

it couldn't have been done without you.



Cecilia: I think he means DD's in general.

[BarkMaster]

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

Don't be so modest Larry,

it couldn't have been done without you.

Cecilia: I think he means DD's in general.

Sheer blasephemy.

Happy this got solved. Now there is an Internet "record" of it, too!

[LarryK]

Originally Posted by 777

Sheer blasephemy.

Happy this got solved. Now there is an Internet "record" of it, too!

....That I have owned in the last very few years...

1986 19019


1979 18038- 5.9 million serial, one of the first Sapphire Day Dates
I have everything with this watch- boxes, papers, tags, receipt.
Super rare original Brown "vignette" dial- anyone seen another dial
like this in Brown??? I have only seen 1 other and it was on an 1803
This is the only one I own at the moment...


1964 1803 in Rose Gold with original Dauphine hands


1986 19018


1972 1803 - This was NOS when I got it- complete with everything


1971 1803 Rose Gold- this watch has the last Rose gold replacement
dial and hand set that Rolex Geneva had. I had to jump through
hoops to get them, but it was worth it...


1978 19019- Sold to my friend Woody who posts here a lot


1968 1803 - Fully resored by the great Bob Ridley. Another replacement
dial and hand set in silver


So, I kind of like them too .... a lot !

[BarkMaster]

I was just being silly.

I could tell you've had quite the history with them.



Thanks for sharing the pics. I love seeing the older models. I wish I had gotten into the game earlier, but it just wasn't time then. (bad pun intended)

[jeff hess]

Originally Posted by 777

Very humble nod.

But least desirable???

I would love one!! I think Jeff makes 2!

---------

yeah.

I had my chance at that watch...... argggh!

:)

Jeff