hoping for some input on 16800 matte dial

[coolbreeze]

Hello. I am currently on the hunt for a nice 16800 matte dial sub and came across an example on the Vintage Worn website titled "16800 Perfect and patina" (vintageworn. com/product/16800-perfect-and-patina/). I was hoping to get some feedback from the experts.

First, as seen in the red marked-up image, are the indices losing tritium around the edges? Is it fair to describe this dial as "virtually flawless"?

Second, is the bezel insert original? While checking out other 16800 sold examples on dealer sites with high quality images (e.g., Tropical Watch), I have seen inserts with either serif or non-serif numbering. This appears to be the latter.

Third, should the date wheel be white (or silver?), and have open sixes/nines?

Fourth, has anyone purchased from this dealer before? How was the experience?

And of course if anyone sees anything else that I missed I would love to hear it.

Thank you.

[swish77]

Very nice-looking 16800 with a fat case.

Has minor tritium shrinkage on the hour markers, which is common. Keep in mind that this watch is almost 40 years old .... four decades! It's in great shape for its age and is described fairly.

Date wheel and bezel insert look correct. (Date wheel shows a flat 4 but I bet it would have open 6s and 9s too. You could also email the seller to confirm.)

I've monitored this site for several years and they seem to get nice pieces, but I've never bought anything. There are some negative reviews around though, so proceed with caution. The prices are also on the high side. Another thing to note is that returned watches incur a 15 percent re-stocking fee.

[GB2]

IMHO, this insert is not correct.

You need a semi flat long tail serif.

[decisive]

Originally Posted by GB2

IMHO, this insert is not correct.

You need a semi flat long tail serif.

Agree to this. Should have a strong serif on the insert.

[Filipão]

From my own #8.275.XXX, this:

[Filipão]

P.S. Is that cyclops magnifying as it should?

[Swearengen]

Here's my 16800 for comparison, the bezel insert appears to have serifs

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by Filipão

P.S. Is that cyclops magnifying as it should?

good pick up - does look a little weak

[swish77]

Originally Posted by GB2

IMHO, this insert is not correct.

You need a semi flat long tail serif.

Hmmm .... I went through this insert issue earlier this year when trying to determine authenticity of a 168000 that I ended up buying and which also has a serif insert. However, what I found was that there were plenty of 16800s that had non-serif inserts with matching patina from the pearl to dial, indicating originality.

Here are a couple of examples I saved from my search:

[Classique Breguet]

OP- Boy that is in unusually good condition and the patina is "perfect"

[XavierM]

Originally Posted by swish77

Hmmm .... I went through this insert issue earlier this year when trying to determine authenticity of a 168000 that I ended up buying and which also has a serif insert. However, what I found was that there were plenty of 16800s that had non-serif inserts with matching patina from the pearl to dial, indicating originality.

Here are a couple of examples I saved from my search:

Your first picture is a later 90s 16610 insert IMO

[swish77]

Originally Posted by XavierM

Your first picture is a later 90s 16610 insert IMO

Perhaps, but interesting how the pearl patina is a perfect match to the rest of the watch. Not sure that would be the case on a later replacement. I've seen a lot of 16800s with similar inserts.

[springer]

Here are a couple of my previously owned Submariners from 1982. Notice both have the same style of insert.

[springer]

Originally Posted by XavierM

Your first picture is a later 90s 16610 insert IMO

I agree. Found on Subs during 1990s up to the early 2000 era. Same style as the "flat 4" found on anniversary 16610LV Submariners.

[XavierM]

Originally Posted by springer

I agree. Found on Subs during 1990s up to the early 2000 era. Same style as the "flat 4" found on anniversary 16610LV Submariners.

I would say very roughly from 1989 to 1993.
The 5 of the 50 is quite unusual: the lack of « upper jaw » make me call it a pac-man 5

[springer]

Originally Posted by XavierM

I would say very roughly from 1989 to 1993.
The 5 of the 50 is quite unusual: the lack of « upper jaw » make me call it a pac-man 5

I don't understand your response which is not the same as you posted earlier. For me, 1993 is not the late 90s. Anyway, it isn't a major concern. I'm just trying to help out. Based on many dozens of Subs that I have had pass through my hands, that insert for me is from the era that I mentioned in my last post.

[XavierM]

Originally Posted by springer

I don't understand your response which is not the same as you posted earlier. For me, 1993 is not the late 90s. Anyway, it isn't a major concern. I'm just trying to help out. Based on many dozens of Subs that I have had pass through my hands, that insert for me is from the era that I mentioned in my last post.

The « later 90s » was meaning « later than the watch, from the 90s », not late 90s
Hope this is less confusing now :)

[coolbreeze]

Thank you all for your input. In light of the questions regarding the insert and tritium shrinkage I am going to pass on this one at its current price.