ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
25 November 2020, 04:24 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Paris (France)
Posts: 688
|
16520 opinion
Hi mates,
I know this subject is redundant but I can't help myself. Could you please give me your opinion about the case, like always it was claimed to be unpolished but that I can not believe. I'm sure it was polished from the service in 2019...Tell me please how do you like this case (especially the thickness)... Many thanks for your help guys zatoichi türkçe
__________________
Rolex ♛ GMT-Master 1675 BLRO | Rolex ♛ Submariner 1680 RED | Rolex ♛ Submariner 5513 MF | Rolex ♛ Submariner 114060 | Omega Ω Speedmaster 105.012 |
25 November 2020, 05:49 AM | #2 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Aaron
Location: CT/NYC
Watch: ing the time!
Posts: 6,772
|
As I wrote in your separate thread about this watch, my opinion is that your case has definitely been polished, and that the crown guards are a little soft. However, it's still a very nice example, IMHO.
So many of these old 16520s have been polished, often several times, because this reference is a shiny scratch-magnet, especially the bezel, but also the sides and the polished center links on the bracelet. So, shops/dealers on the secondary market usually try to make them pristine again. I know you could say that about all vintage/classic Rolexes, but for some reason Daytonas seem to be polished more frequently. That's been my experience anyway. Here are some photos of mine for comparison. Look closely at the difference in the crown gaurds. I'm confident this one is unpolished, and it's got the warts to prove it. |
25 November 2020, 06:43 AM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 53
|
Yup definitely polished substantially. A lot of material seems to be taken off at the crown gards and the lugs are uneven. Moreover, these are no genuine p401 pushers but most probably aftermarker replacement ones, which is visually unpleasing and might negatively affect it‘s water resistance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
25 November 2020, 06:56 AM | #4 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Aaron
Location: CT/NYC
Watch: ing the time!
Posts: 6,772
|
Quote:
Also, the crown-side lugs were always a little thinner on these Daytonas, even when new, so I'm not sure I'm seeing that the proportion is substantially different, even though it's been polished. |
|
25 November 2020, 06:58 AM | #5 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 53
|
Quote:
Okey lugwise that‘s possibly true but still the watch has been polished for sure. Best tell is that the two groves towards the pusher tip are too wide. Look on the other example where they are much thinner. There were some few early p401 that had wider groves but again they look different a bit. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
25 November 2020, 11:42 AM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 163
|
OP’s watch is polished. My two day old watch has more scratch and swirl than that 16520.
|
28 November 2020, 02:33 AM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: uk
Posts: 989
|
100% polished
But still a nice watch. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
4 December 2020, 12:42 AM | #8 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Paris (France)
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
You’re unfortunately completely right. The pushers are not the right ones...those are for an older reference obviously...like you said the right ones should be 401 and the one that they put while servicing the 16520 are the 402 from the 116520. Would you know the difference between 401 and 402? Thanks mates :cheers
__________________
Rolex ♛ GMT-Master 1675 BLRO | Rolex ♛ Submariner 1680 RED | Rolex ♛ Submariner 5513 MF | Rolex ♛ Submariner 114060 | Omega Ω Speedmaster 105.012 |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.