Submariner 1680 question

[Chris75]

Hey there, can I have your thoughts about this 1680?

I hope someone can help me out. Thanks

[TimeLord2]

Other than looking like a brand new watch with perfectly aged lume, and a thick case, I know nothing about this reference. If original, which it very well could be, it looks to be in amazing condition but it is the perfect lume that makes me think it is too good to be true. But like I said, I know next to nothing about this reference just that it is a 40-50 year old watch. Experts will be along shortly…

[KY..]

I see zero wear marks on a watch that is supposed to be over 40 years old yet it’s all nice and shinny after so long.
Very hard to believe these days unless it has amazing provenance as proof.

[TimeToGo]

.
This belongs in the Watchout section...
.

[Chris75]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

.
This belongs in the Watchout section...
.

I am sorry it means this is the correct section or that in your opinion the watch have issues?

[GGGMT]

NOS from 50 years ago! Mazels!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ascari_2]

Do the chamfers seem too narrow for a 1680? Hard to tell from that downward shot.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[AHP22]

Share more of the story. Are you considering buying? What is the seller saying about it and it’s history? Any additional pictures? Price?

[VonSlingshot]

Manufactured by a pro replica guy right thurr......

Run.

[mignonp13]

It is service case with old serial re-engraved… original mk1 dial, better pics needed to be sure of the tritium lumes.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[thesharkfactor]

Originally Posted by mignonp13

It is service case with old serial re-engraved… original mk1 dial, better pics needed to be sure of the tritium lumes.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Yeah and a brand new crown and a brand new bezel and a brand new bezel insert and brand new bracelet links too? None of these items I note show any age or wear from a polishing wheel whatsoever.

The case shows no wear where the endlinks touch the lugs, this is brand new, it appears to have had a rub down with a CapeCod cloth to soften and age some of the brushing and it's probably had a quick slap about the lugs with a Bergeon buff stick to remove the burrs left over from manufacturing the new case.

There is distortion on the cyclops so the crystal is certainly aftermarket (fake).

Too many red flags.

[GGGMT]

Amazing insights! Thku for the learning!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris75]

Originally Posted by thesharkfactor

Yeah and a brand new crown and a brand new bezel and a brand new bezel insert and brand new bracelet links too? None of these items I note show any age or wear from a polishing wheel whatsoever.

The case shows no wear where the endlinks touch the lugs, this is brand new, it appears to have had a rub down with a CapeCod cloth to soften and age some of the brushing and it's probably had a quick slap about the lugs with a Bergeon buff stick to remove the burrs left over from manufacturing the new case.

There is distortion on the cyclops so the crystal is certainly aftermarket (fake).

Too many red flags.

The watch came from a well know American dealer with a stellar reputation; bracelet, insert and bezel show some age, they are just in very good condition and it's probably just the picture that make them look better (or too good to be true for you).

So the point for me is: the serial is correct and right or not?.
Obviously if serial is correct and re-engraved by Rolex there is no reason to theorize any rubbing-down with capecod or quick slap with Bergeon buff (???).
Otherwise if serial isn't correct is also pointless to fantasize about rubbing and slapping.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by Chris75

a well know American dealer with a stellar reputation.

Who?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KY..]

Originally Posted by Chris75

The watch came from a well know American dealer with a stellar reputation; bracelet, insert and bezel show some age, they are just in very good condition and it's probably just the picture that make them look better (or too good to be true for you).

So the point for me is: the serial is correct and right or not?.
Obviously if serial is correct and re-engraved by Rolex there is no reason to theorize any rubbing-down with capecod or quick slap with Bergeon buff (???).
Otherwise if serial isn't correct is also pointless to fantasize about rubbing and slapping.

The bottom line is no one here is comfortable or willing to believe this watch is as-is authentic from the 1970’s…
You mention Rolex redoing the engraving and that sounds very strange…
You ask so much about the SN while the entire watch is questionable…
If you believe it is authentic then that is your business, but to me it does not add up…
When you ask about authenticity here you should easily be able to show more proof than you have shown…
If not, well you get the responses that you have gotten…

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by Chris75

So the point for me is: the serial is correct and right or not?.

Confirmed — 5.6mm could be a 1680 white sub


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TimeToGo]

First, the watch is not an "original" 5.6 mil 1680 sub. PERIOD

It appears to be a complete redone (new everything). Some RSCs "in the past" did reengrave original serial numbers. However, this one shows newer type markings that I have not seen.

The OPs lack of information been provided as to how the watch is advertised or by whom, reflects the lack of participation on your thread.

OP, if you care to share more information, that would be greatly appreciated.

If you are seeing this from "a well know American dealer with a stellar reputation" then why come here and ask... your statement says it all..

[Chris75]

Thanks for the all the answers.

Watch was originally purchased from a New York dealer (I prefer to be as discreet as this) by the current seller (purchase receipt is also included), that is an American collector.

Conditions are coherent with the watches that are usually sold by this dealer (that are generally mint), so the fact that the insert is mint and the dial is flawless aren't an issue for me.

My doubts were referred to the engravings, that I was told may be redone by Rolex during a service on a service case, as also stated by mignonp13,

I don't have any experience with re-engraved service cases, nor I was able to find any examples for comparation.

[TimeToGo]

Here are a couple discussions with examples..

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=776961

[freefly]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

First, the watch is not an "original" 5.6 mil 1680 sub. PERIOD

^^^ This.

Was thinking it *might* be a service case at first glance. However, service cases are typically engraved with a "service specific" font (but not always). Also, there may have been a period when Rolex would re-engrave the original SN onto service cases, but I have not seen any. The only (documented) service cases I've seen were issued unique (new) serial numbers. The service cases begin with either 4.4M or 4.7M.
This watch falls well outside of those service-case SN ranges.


So, while I can't definitively say that it's not a legitimate Rolex service case, it would be a pass for me regardless...