ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
29 August 2015, 12:28 PM | #1 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 2,271
|
1680 Red Insert Question
Hello Experts,
Quick question on the attached pic. Watch is a Mark IV but I cannot tell if it is a service insert or not. What are the thoughts from the experts? Thanks |
29 August 2015, 01:21 PM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: US
Watch: Gilt
Posts: 1,592
|
Can you provide another photo or two, please? There's something I am not sure about.
|
29 August 2015, 01:25 PM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Real Name: JC
Location: Earth
Watch: 1680 ~ 16610LV
Posts: 811
|
looks like MK3
__________________
************************ ************************ |
29 August 2015, 01:30 PM | #4 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 2,271
|
Some additional pics attached and thanks for taking the time
|
29 August 2015, 01:37 PM | #5 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Real Name: JC
Location: Earth
Watch: 1680 ~ 16610LV
Posts: 811
|
Great looking Red.
It's a MK3 Fat Font insert. Not service
__________________
************************ ************************ |
29 August 2015, 03:58 PM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Real Name: Jon
Location: UK
Watch: Smurf/Hulk/1680
Posts: 2,920
|
The pearl looks to have been replaced but don't think it's a service insert.
|
29 August 2015, 04:37 PM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Real Name: Manuel
Location: Germany
Posts: 51
|
Yes it's a MK3 fat font inlay and it has aged nicely to a blueish hue.
|
29 August 2015, 09:40 PM | #8 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: US
Watch: Gilt
Posts: 1,592
|
Much better.
That insert is the first of the mk3 inserts (what I call 3.1). The "4" tells it all. Roughly, it would have been used from about 1970 until the mid 70s. Later 70s would have had (again roughly) the 3.2, which had a radiused 4 (smooth on the outermost point) and anything prior would have been one of a couple mk2 inserts. The "3.3" would have been on something like a late 1665 (including the rail) which takes you into 79/80+ |
29 August 2015, 09:49 PM | #9 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 2,271
|
Quote:
Wow, thanks very much for the information. Thanks to all who helped me out. Love this place |
|
30 August 2015, 02:41 PM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Real Name: Dan
Location: California
Watch: 1016 & 16700
Posts: 368
|
what are the distinguishing feature of the 3.3?
|
31 August 2015, 12:57 AM | #11 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: US
Watch: Gilt
Posts: 1,592
|
with the "3.3" the numbers, especially the 4, sit flush with the outside of the insert. Also the "hypotenuse" side of the 4 isn't rounded at the corner (3.2) nor does it have a inward bend (3.1) at the end.
btw - no one but me subscribes to the 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 nomenclature. There wasn't a way to catalogue these cool differences so I made one up. These mk3 inserts were used for a very large window (more than 10 years) so not all of them are alike. Cheers, Steve |
31 August 2015, 02:51 AM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hong Kong
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 716
|
Is this insert a service insert? The pearl seems newly replaced. Apologise for hijacking this thread with another insert.
Many thanks in advance. |
31 August 2015, 03:29 AM | #13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Real Name: Dan
Location: California
Watch: 1016 & 16700
Posts: 368
|
Steve
Thanks for the great mrk 3 information! |
31 August 2015, 06:37 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
Looks great - MK3 fat font
__________________
|
31 August 2015, 01:19 PM | #15 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hong Kong
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 716
|
Hi Vincent,
Were you referring to Knobberboy's insert or the photo I posted. I think identifying an insert is even harder than identifying the dial's version. |
31 August 2015, 02:10 PM | #16 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Sam
Location: los Angeles
Posts: 2,051
|
Adi, urs is a mark 3 fat font. Fatter than op but both FF. the difference thickness is due to the worn pad used to print these. Check out my pic below. The two at the bottom r what Steve refers as 3.2. Notice the rounded top 40?
I blame it on the autoconnect. |
31 August 2015, 04:33 PM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
The OP's, but both, actually. It's only my humble view, and there's no definitive or official classification of inserts, other than the obvious service ones, and long 5s. Some say the so-called 'MKI' is the same as the 'MKIII', and, as has already been said, it's generally agreed that it's largely down to worn pads/bleeding, giving rise to fatter digits.
__________________
|
31 August 2015, 05:11 PM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hong Kong
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 716
|
Thanks guys! Really appreciate it. Very informative.
|
31 August 2015, 06:39 PM | #19 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Real Name: G
Location: Scotland
Watch: 16570
Posts: 384
|
Great Photo Sam.
Can anyone add to this as the "flat 4" and spacing either side and noticeably different (the one at the top) is that a service insert or the last of the originals? cheers |
1 September 2015, 10:45 AM | #20 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Sam
Location: los Angeles
Posts: 2,051
|
Quote:
Hi Pict. If u look at my pic, the top one in the bezel, that's the flat four mid font. The 4 in 40 is fatter than service n looks squarish. I think it was used in the early eighties as u could see many seadweller 1665 fitted with these originally. I would assume rolex would also use it for service replacement in the early 80's. I blame it on the autoconnect. |
|
1 September 2015, 10:55 AM | #21 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,268
|
Its an MKIII and its correct for the watch. Looks great, enjoy it.
|
20 September 2015, 09:29 PM | #22 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Real Name: G
Location: Scotland
Watch: 16570
Posts: 384
|
Cheers Sam, apologies to the OP for jumping on the thread but here's pics of my 5.99 mil 1680. It looks like its perhaps a mid font flat 4 to me but i had previously thought it was a service dial, could this be original to the watch, papers are dated 81? Thanks
|
20 September 2015, 09:35 PM | #23 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Real Name: G
Location: Scotland
Watch: 16570
Posts: 384
|
Hopefully here:
nope, ok i'll give it a go later, something ain't working :) |
20 September 2015, 11:35 PM | #24 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: US
Watch: Gilt
Posts: 1,592
|
It could be original to the watch. It's not a service insert, it's what I'd expect to find on a late matte 5513, for example (of the same vintage).
In this time period one could also find the latest of the mk3 inserts. Personally, I think you are good to leave it as is. |
21 September 2015, 01:52 AM | #25 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Real Name: G
Location: Scotland
Watch: 16570
Posts: 384
|
Thanks Steve, thats good to know.
I had actually looked into buying a period correct insert but was put off by the cost, which I'm kinda pleased about now |
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.