When the Submariner Date 1680 was introduced?

[scooba]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

Ok, can anyone show examples of 1680s with earlier case numbers?

Alternatively, can anyone show examples with 2m case numbers and justification for thinking that they are from earlier than 1969?

There is a lot of recycled information on the internet. Something incorrect that is copied by half a dozen other people makes it no more correct than it was in the first place. Date charts are frequently among the clearest demonstrations of this.

I have a 1.69 Red Submariner MK1

[Haywood_Milton]

Originally Posted by scooba

I have a 1.69 Red Submariner MK1

Lest anyone misunderstand, I am sure Scooba means a 1680 with date code for the first quarter of 1969, rather than a 1.69m case number!

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by seattleal

I've been debating whether to post the following, but here it is -

In the fall of 1970 I asked my aunt, who was traveling to Hong Kong, to buy me a date submariner, which I had recently learned existed. Not realizing what they would become, I sold it in 1986, but here is the relevant point. The watch was a feet first red sub. From pictures I still have, I believe it was a Mark V dial. If the 1680 was only introduced in 1969, and the Mark I-IV dials were issued chronologically, did Rolex really sell enough watches in one year to get all the way to Mark V by the fall of 1970? And if not, then what does that imply about the year of introduction?

Thanks for sharing, Al. Very interesting story and it adds a lot to the debate.

[Styles Bitchley]

This thread is a valuable resource for this discussion. I went through all posts at some point in the past but don’t have time now. https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=225667


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[77T]

Just an observation, an article in Rolex Magazine is not something I’d rely upon since the author can make errors.

As for the exercise, I’ll be interested if anyone has a 1680 bearing a midcase serial number earlier than Haywood cited.

Last comment - a 1680 and a 1675 shared a common midcase. An undocumented SS 1680 with a s/n dating it prior to 1969 is not proof. Because any watchmaker could have swapped a midcase between those models a long time ago due to damage.

One would need a 1680 with documentation showing a sale date, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Styles Bitchley]

Originally Posted by 77T

Just an observation, an article in Rolex Magazine is not something I’d rely upon since the author can make errors.

As for the exercise, I’ll be interested if anyone has a 1680 bearing a midcase serial number earlier than Haywood cited.

Last comment - a 1680 and a 1675 shared a common midcase. An undocumented SS 1680 with a s/n dating it prior to 1969 is not proof. Because any watchmaker could have swapped a midcase between those models a long time ago due to damage.

One would need a 1680 with documentation showing a sale date, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There’s a 2.09m Mk1 listed on the first page of the link I shared above. The photos are not showing any more (post is seven years old.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by 77T

Last comment - a 1680 and a 1675 shared a common midcase. An undocumented SS 1680 with a s/n dating it prior to 1969 is not proof. Because any watchmaker could have swapped a midcase between those models a long time ago due to damage.

Really? The midcase on a 1680 looks totally different form a 1675

[77T]

I think you may be looking at the crown guards? True - those are different.

But inside the machining is the same, size is same, don’t you agree?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[scooba]

Originally Posted by scooba

I have a 1.69 Red Submariner MK1

Sorry if I confused the debate ,

my watch serial number is 2186xxx and is clearly manufactured in the first quarter off 1969. These are Andrews pics off the watch

http://sheartime.com/products/1969-r...ner-ref-1680-2

[Pete17]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

I don't think it's a mystery really. The issue is various sources throw out dates, they aren't official sources. As one poster said above, The Rolex Submariner magazine says 1969.
I think that what has happened is people have in modern times arbitrarily thrown around the dates "from 1966".
I'm no expert but there aren't any 1680's with before 2 million serial and Mr Milton's example is a very early Mk1 from 1969.

To me it's no mystery, the first Sea-Dweller came to the public in 1967 and the Submariner as far as I can tell was still dateless. With the success of the Sea-Dweller Rolex prepped for and released the Submariner in 1969.
At least that is what I can surmise from perusing through various sound literature.
Anytime time you see a date mentioned before 1969, it states "as early as, or been reported, some say"....who, why....seems like just covering their bases in their article. Fratello for example just has contributors and there are two different versions on the same website.

I have never seen one for sale with a date or serial number before 1969. But I'm eager to learn as much as you. Why we don't have specifics from Basel...because everything was analog...you'd need to walk into a library and pull paper printed materials from a dusty shelf in Switzerland to find out watch release data from 1969.

Spot on.
Have owned and handled many meters first red subs and have never seen one stamped earlier than ‘69


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HL65]

I owned an early 1680/8 meters first with patent pending bracelet and it was from 1969.

[Robbyvm]

Hello,

Interesting thread.... i received a message from a fellow forum member concerning an older post of mine.

Below you can find some pictures of my (in the meanwhile sold) MKI Red Sub.
I believe it is the earliest serial number shown/known on the forum based on the archive with serial numbers that has been kept for some years.

If any questions, shoot !
Robby

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by HL65

I owned an early 1680/8 meters first with patent pending bracelet and it was from 1969.

Thanks Ken. Long time no see. Hope everything is fine with you my friend.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Robbyvm

Hello,

Interesting thread.... i received a message from a fellow forum member concerning an older post of mine.

Below you can find some pictures of my (in the meanwhile sold) MKI Red Sub.
I believe it is the earliest serial number shown/known on the forum based on the archive with serial numbers that has been kept for some years.

If any questions, shoot !
Robby

Thanks for sharing Robby. Amazing watch btw.

[sfc rick]

Sure is a lot of discussion on this topic. I went to my Rolex #6 issue on the Submariner and it was introduced in 1953, with the date version being introduced in 1969. End of discussion. At least this is Rolex's version of events in their published timeline.

[Styles Bitchley]

Originally Posted by Robbyvm

Hello,



Interesting thread.... i received a message from a fellow forum member concerning an older post of mine.



Below you can find some pictures of my (in the meanwhile sold) MKI Red Sub.

I believe it is the earliest serial number shown/known on the forum based on the archive with serial numbers that has been kept for some years.



If any questions, shoot !

Robby

What a killer watch! Interesting that even with the early serial, the case back is from the second quarter of ‘69. Seems pretty evident that talk of release dates prior to ‘69 are just that: talk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[springer]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Thank you for your expertise, about what date would that put the watch(research says that's a Mk1). Is it correct to assume that the case back could have been used from previous years stock because everything was the same except the addition of the date complication.

Is is correct that 2,xxx,xxx cases are from '66 onward or would these still be 1969 watches and onward watches?....

You won't find any 2xxxxxx serial numbers with a case back earlier than 1968. Definitely not 1966.

There is a lot of incorrect information being posted here from various sources.

If anyone has anything substantive that indicates the Sub 1680s were around before 1969, please provide it here.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by springer

You won't find any 2xxxxxx serial numbers with a case back earlier than 1968. Definitely not 1966.

There is a lot of incorrect information being posted here from various sources.

If anyone has anything substantive that indicates the Sub 1680s were around before 1969, please provide it here.

The current evidence doesn't support 1968 either. Everything that is available and credible is for a date in 1969.
Kind regards.

[springer]

According to the Rolex press kit for the 16610LV anniversary Submariner, the first Submariner with a date (model 1680) was launched during 1969.

Again, the 1680 was launched during 1969.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by springer

According to the Rolex press kit for the 16610LV anniversary Submariner, the first Submariner with a date (model 1680) was launched during 1969.

Again, the 1680 was launched during 1969.

Great information. Thank you for contributing.

[FTX I]

That's what I was looking for, gentlemen. Thank you.

[Racer X]

I think there's ample evidence that it's 1969. Not sure why this is a debate.

[Styles Bitchley]

Originally Posted by Racer X

I think there's ample evidence that it's 1969. Not sure why this is a debate.

The gold 1680 in the 1967 German catalogue posted earlier seemed to create some “evidence” but maybe the poster had the wrong publication date. I’ve never even seen one of these early gold versions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[springer]

Originally Posted by Racer X

I think there's ample evidence that it's 1969. Not sure why this is a debate.

It's not the debate...it's the drama for some

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by springer

It's not the debate...it's the drama for some

Valid point. ;)

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by springer

It's not the debate...it's the drama for some

Respectfully disagree. Can't see any drama on this thread. Only an honest search for definitive answers. In fact the official information that you say is there on the Rolex catalogue was accepted without any further request for pics or anything like that. Just your word was enough.

[springer]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Respectfully disagree. Can't see any drama on this thread. Only an honest search for definitive answers. In fact the official information that you say is there on the Rolex catalogue was accepted without any further request for pics or anything like that. Just your word was enough.

It was a joke, take it easy.

[gasparantonio]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Release year is not exactly clear and I'd like to understand why. Monochrome, Fratellowatches and Wikipedia put the first 1680 in 1966 (that's what I always thought). Bob's Watches seem confident it was in 1969. Never heard of this 60Clicks but they say 1967. I could post many other links with different infos. The release year was not that long ago, so we should have it documented. What's the reason for this uncertainty?

https://monochrome-watches.com/weekl...date-ref-1680/

https://www.fratellowatches.com/role...riner-history/

https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-bl...iner-1680.html

https://www.60clicks.com/rolex-subma...lectors-guide/

Very interesting thread.

Quick solution:

Let’s wait and see what Rolex has prepared for us at Basel 2019, and to solve this thread, I would be much pleased if the brand new Rolex Submariner Red writing 40mm with new 3285 movement is launched as the 50th Anniversary Date Submariner.

[ponycar350]

I am fairly certain I have a 1.8 mill 1680

[Mike Wood]

Originally Posted by ponycar350

I am fairly certain I have a 1.8 mill 1680

Well, you need to dig that one out and share it with the class!