Rolex Submariner 168000 Engraving Question

[swish77]

Also posted this over on VRF ....

Here's the reference number engraving on a Rolex Sub 168000, 9.37 million serial number. I've researched the 168000 ad nauseam and know the history and the "loose" zeros that were added by Rolex to distinguish the new 904 steel being used on Subs. My question is ..... Is this last zero too "loose?" It's not only lower and apart from the rest of the reference number, but it's squiggly. I couldn't find another example online that was quite this "off."

Everything else on the watch looks good, including a perfect serial number engraving. It's also got the correct case back for a 168000 with the "rugby ball" logo, and it's got the distinctive MK1 dial for the 168000 with the Z-shaped "S" in Submariner. The watch also had a recent RSC service, although the warranty card states "16800" not "168000," which I've read is fairly common for Rolex paperwork on legit 168000s.

Still, does that last zero look so odd as to raise any eyebrows that it might not be legit? Any opinions and insight most appreciated.

[Traveling]

Looks like a child scratched it in to me.

[baumare]

For what I know the last zero not in line with the others is very common on the 168000, so common that it has been imitated by fakers.
The fact that it has the Rolex logo inside the case and the Zubmariner dial I guess it would do the deal for me

[77T]

Originally Posted by swish77

1) Is this last zero too "loose?" It's not only lower and apart from the rest of the reference number, but it's squiggly. I couldn't find another example online that was quite this "off."

2) The watch also had a recent RSC service, although the warranty card states "16800" not "168000," which I've read is fairly common for Rolex paperwork on legit 168000s.

3) Still, does that last zero look so odd as to raise any eyebrows that it might not be legit? Any opinions and insight most appreciated.

I put some numbers on selected questions.
1) yes it’s way too primitive.
2) no the RSC had the correct ref#.
3) it’s handicraft at work - not legit IMHO.

But even if you do buy it, good luck convincing the next buyer that it is legit. Again just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by Traveling

Looks like a child scratched it in to me.

Looks fine and dandy to me.
Seen both the odd zero and the dropped 0 (separate and together as this one is).
The dropped 0 on this one from 2011 bought from new so vouchsafed legit @ answer # 20 is very low
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=198598

[George58]

all the letters and numbers are machined the last without Q done free hand shitty too

[zapokee]

Authentic Rolex engravings in the past have been notoriously sh*t. I've seen some genuine vintage ones that looked like they'd been scratched on with a nail by a five-year-old.

I'd take a holistic view to authentication rather than relying on one feature. The fact that the RSC serviced it bodes well, and having the paperwork for that will mean that resale won't be a problem if you ever decide to part with it.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by 77T

I put some numbers on selected questions.
1) yes it’s way too primitive.
2) no the RSC had the correct ref#.
3) it’s handicraft at work - not legit IMHO.

But even if you do buy it, good luck convincing the next buyer that it is legit. Again just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I agree with you Paul. Well said

[TimeToGo]

.
Absolutely nothing wrong with it - as @PaulDavidThorpe has mentioned..

[77T]

Originally Posted by zapokee

Authentic Rolex engravings in the past have been notoriously sh*t. I've seen some genuine vintage ones that looked like they'd been scratched on with a nail by a five-year-old.

I'd take a holistic view to authentication rather than relying on one feature. The fact that the RSC serviced it bodes well, and having the paperwork for that will mean that resale won't be a problem if you ever decide to part with it.

I agree that many 168000’s don’t have the last appended zero in correct alignment.

I believe that the RSC serviced it when this particular watch only had 16800 on its case between the lugs. That last zero was done afterward methinks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TuRo]

I can't get why this would have even been a fake-worthy piece !!...as in say 2016 the 16800 was £4k and a 168000 was same 4k ish - even now there is next to no discernible difference in value of a white gold 16800 and a 168000, the serial numbers are correct for a 168000 of course and getting the correct RB case back would have cost £700-800 to bring to the party of faking the model! If it was faking a 6536/1 to a 6536 or other significantly higher value watches eg putting a matte dial in a 8.7million 16800 (which adds 25-30% to value) - but this 16800-168000 fakery would just be a collosal futile gesture par excellence !

[baumare]

I agree with the fact that it will be always debatable and hard to eventually sell it, that's why this post was open, so I merely try to discuss what I've learn when I was looking to buy one, and the fact that the serial number of 9.3 is in the correct range and it has the correct stamp inside the case back lead me to believe that is correct.

Screen Shot 2022-04-18 at 10.05.41 AM.jpg

Screen Shot 2022-04-18 at 10.18.13 AM.jpg

[swish77]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. This type of engraving appears to be a quirky footnote in Rolex Sub history. From what I've found online, there is technically no Rolex reference "168000." It's a 16800 that Rolex simply added a zero to for internal reasons, to distinguish the metals. In the first examples (early 9 millions, maybe earlier) the extra zero was sometimes engraved by hand, and after around 9.6 million it was always machine engraved. That's why you see some examples with perfect engravings and others (like the above example) that look a little sloppy.

You won't find "168000" in any Rolex brochures, manuals or guarantee papers, nor on case backs. It's the same reason almost all Rolex service paperwork lists these Subs as a "16800," not a "168000." There's been a lot of discussion over on VRF about this oddball Sub, for those more interested. There's also a ton of misinformation about it online, including some watch sites (Bob's, for example) that say the 168000 was first made in 1987. That's wrong.

As for the example above, it has a dial and case back specific to the 168000, along with perfectly matching patina down to the insert pearl (and confirmed via UV light). It also has a 1986-coded clasp (same as serial number timeframe), making the whole package fit perfectly. Logic tells me it's definitely a legit "168000," despite a slightly crooked zero. Also, if the case had an "unauthorized" zero added, Rolex presumably would not have serviced the watch last year. (Yes, I guess it could have been added in the past few months after the service, but that seems highly unlikely. As Paul points out above, what would be the motive?)

Here's a photo of the watch and Rolex card (with serial partly blurred.) It appears close to a time-capsule example, and the previous owner told RSC not to polish it. The dial is also pristine, escaping the common issues with these early gloss dials (spidering, crazing, spotting, etc ...)

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by swish77

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. This type of engraving appears to be a quirky footnote in Rolex Sub history. From what I've found online, there is technically no Rolex reference "168000." It's a 16800 that Rolex simply added a zero to for internal reasons, to distinguish the metals. In the first examples (early 9 millions, maybe earlier) the extra zero was engraved by hand, and after around 9.6 million it was machine engraved. That's why you see some examples with perfect engravings and others (like the above example) that look a little sloppy.

You won't find "168000" in any Rolex brochures, manuals or guarantee papers, nor on case backs. It's the same reason almost all Rolex service paperwork lists these Subs as a "16800," not a "168000." There's been a lot of discussion over on VRF about this oddball Sub, for those more interested. There's also a ton of misinformation about it online, including some watch sites (Bob's, for example) that say it was first made in 1987. That's wrong.

As for the example above, it has a dial and case back specific to the 168000, along with perfectly matching patina down to the insert pearl (and confirmed via UV light). It also has a 1986-coded clasp (same as serial number timeframe), making the whole package fit perfectly. Logic tells me it's definitely a legit "168000," despite a slightly crooked zero. Also, if the case had an "unauthorized" zero added, Rolex presumably would not have serviced the watch last year. (Yes, I guess it could have been added in the past few months after the service, but that seems highly unlikely. As Paul points out above, what would be the motive?)

Here's a photo of the watch and Rolex card (with serial partly blurred.) It appears close to a time-capsule example, and the previous owner told RSC not to polish it. The dial is also pristine, escaping the common issues with these early gloss dials (spidering, crazing, spotting, etc ...)

100% agree with all of that, nice looking piece too love a browning marker/h-set gloss white gold piece!

Has it ever occured to anyone that while the 168000 got launched and is recognized as 904L - Rolex themselves on their own website and literature say that 904L was introduced in 1985 and various write-ups state it was on the Sea Dweller first. The 16660 was nearing end of production but was not at its end as the 16600 didn't get launched until 1988

So why is there no transitional model sea dweller eg a mid 80s 166600 (with an extra 0) to signify a change to 904L ?

All we got on 16660 was a change from Matte to Gloss WG dial 8.5mill.

Why did the sub get demarcated by a model no. of an added 0, but not the sea dweller....or did they in fact NOT switch to 904L in 1985 as Rolex state, or did they do it on the quiet, or was it at the 16660 launch in 1988 3 yrs later, that it got introduced....but if so I can only see mention of the new watch getting a 3135 over a 3035 calibre and NO mention of 904L case difference in 16660 launch blurb I've seen? Anyone help with a definitive answer pls?

[hutch300]

I inquired on that same watch. I didn't move forward because of the vibe of the seller. I loved the dial and the odd reference of it. Its hard to know if the Rolex service card is legit because it was provided by the seller. You could see if Rolex will verify the service record by calling. That was what I was planning to do but I ended up with a 5513 from a great seller here on the forum.

[MrChamfers]

It seems legit, the font is no big deal, given the poor quality of Rolex engravings over the years. And the 168000 will always have a slight premium over the 16800 since there were so few made.
But as always, buy the seller, and it sounds like, not this seller.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by hutch300

I inquired on that same watch. I didn't move forward because of the vibe of the seller. I loved the dial and the odd reference of it. Its hard to know if the Rolex service card is legit because it was provided by the seller.

The watch in now in the hands of a new seller, although I gotta say that the previous seller to whom you're referring actually responded to my questions about the watch, even though he now has nothing to gain.

And RSC service cards/paperwork will always be provided by the seller, unless you're the one getting it serviced by RSC, so not sure why the card was questioned. Maybe I'm missing your point, but it's all good.

[hutch300]

I was just worried about the original deal. The guy was nice (and a forum member). Just was too eager for me. If you feel good about it the watch definitely looks nice and the year makes sense for the model.

The card thing for me was the explanation that I got about it. I'd have to go back to my PMs but for me it didn't work out. I have thought of it many times since. The dial and patina is quite appealing to me with such a crisp example.

[SLWoodster]

I’m the original seller. The watch is legitimate and authentic. I purchased from a Rolex AD with the service card and i got the service and watch authenticated by the Rolex Service Center in Beverly Hills.

The watch is a transitional piece, you’ll find it referenced as M16800, 16800, or 168000. As a transitional piece, it shares parts with the models that came before and after. As for the questions about the “0” at the end. I remember looking it up and there are other examples of this. If Rolex deemed it fake, they would not service it or warranty its service for it. Do not forget how many error dials were in this era. Cream dial explorer 2, easily missing pearls on submariners, cracking of the dials, “tropical” spotting of the dial, print errors were prevalent in many Rolexes until the modern ones came along.

It is a beautiful watch. Please don’t made assumptions about it. Buy it, enjoy it or let it go to the next person. The watch is over 30 years old and in excellent condition. If you are the buyer I am happy to cc you in any questions with Rolex Service Center. My eagerness is due to my willingness to contribute to the community and to shut down any mistruths that can stem from false assumptions.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by SLWoodster

I’m the original seller. The watch is legitimate and authentic. I purchased from a Rolex AD with the service card and i got the service and watch authenticated by the Rolex Service Center in Beverly Hills.

The watch is a transitional piece, you’ll find it referenced as M16800, 16800, or 168000. As a transitional piece, it shares parts with the models that came before and after. As for the questions about the “0” at the end. I remember looking it up and there are other examples of this. If Rolex deemed it fake, they would not service it or warranty its service for it. Do not forget how many error dials were in this era. Cream dial explorer 2, easily missing pearls on submariners, cracking of the dials, “tropical” spotting of the dial, print errors were prevalent in many Rolexes until the modern ones came along.

It is a beautiful watch. Please don’t made assumptions about it. Buy it, enjoy it or let it go to the next person. The watch is over 30 years old and in excellent condition. If you are the buyer I am happy to cc you in any questions with Rolex Service Center. My eagerness is due to my willingness to contribute to the community and to shut down any mistruths that can stem from false assumptions.

Many thanks for posting this. As I said previously, you were answering my questions even though you don't even own the watch any more, which was much appreciated.

As for authenticity, I have no doubts at this point. Looks like a stunning Sub with an untouched case and beautiful matching patina. Very hard to find.

[TuRo]

I had a feeling that this would happen. The watch is a very nice piece, and objectively totally legitimate*.
What we have had is all sorts of subjective nonsense spouted about it by some who are not experts and a few who frankly just don't know what they are talking about.
Funnily enough, I was thinking what would the poor seller think if he read this poorly judged commentary denigrating the piece... this is why I would never sell a watch here; because you are simply on a hiding to nothing !
* RSC vintage service expert (RSC contract out to him) asked earlier today to comment to me - and quote 'said he'd seen 100s like this over last 25 years')

[TimeToGo]

Originally Posted by SLWoodster

I’m the original seller. The watch is legitimate and authentic. I purchased from a Rolex AD with the service card and i got the service and watch authenticated by the Rolex Service Center in Beverly Hills.

The watch is a transitional piece, you’ll find it referenced as M16800, 16800, or 168000. As a transitional piece, it shares parts with the models that came before and after. As for the questions about the “0” at the end. I remember looking it up and there are other examples of this. If Rolex deemed it fake, they would not service it or warranty its service for it. Do not forget how many error dials were in this era. Cream dial explorer 2, easily missing pearls on submariners, cracking of the dials, “tropical” spotting of the dial, print errors were prevalent in many Rolexes until the modern ones came along.

It is a beautiful watch. Please don’t made assumptions about it. Buy it, enjoy it or let it go to the next person. The watch is over 30 years old and in excellent condition. If you are the buyer I am happy to cc you in any questions with Rolex Service Center. My eagerness is due to my willingness to contribute to the community and to shut down any mistruths that can stem from false assumptions.

Congrats on your purchase, a very fine watch!

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

Congrats on your purchase, a very fine watch!

ttg

[swish77]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

Congrats on your purchase, a very fine watch!

Well, for the record, the watch has not been purchased, not yet anyway. Now the fun part .... trying to get it for a fair price.

[swaini3]

Nice thread. Informative. Good luck to the seller. This should help buyers clear up any doubts. for people sharing their knowledge.

[hutch300]

I hope you enjoy the watch. Happy to see the forum member add to the thread he was the original seller. Like I said I was not sure. I think it is time that watch get some wrist time - hope you can close the deal.

[swish77]

For those interested, below is a link to a short video showing the dial out of the above-mentioned 168000.

What's unusual, besides the rare "Z" dial that is only in the early 168000s, is the pristine condition. The majority of these early gloss Sub dials don't age well ... with spidering, crazing, cracking, going an odd blotchy matte with spots, staining around the hour markers, etc ... This dial appears perfect, with a slight even matting:

https://youtube.com/shorts/0-UCaPf0QqE

[springer]

Originally Posted by swish77

For those interested, below is a link to a short video showing the dial out of the above-mentioned 168000.

What's unusual, besides the rare "Z" dial that is only in the early 168000s, is the pristine condition. The majority of these early gloss Sub dials don't age well ... with spidering, crazing, cracking, going an odd blotchy matte with spots, staining around the hour markers, etc ... This dial appears perfect, with a slight even matting:

https://youtube.com/shorts/0-UCaPf0QqE

Swish, I thought you were interested? What happened?

[swish77]

Originally Posted by springer

Swish, I thought you were interested? What happened?

I am. Still negotiating. It’s a stunning Sub, but the price needs to be right, of course.

[swish77]

Just to put a bow on this thread .... Finally got the 168000 in hand, and the engraving is not nearly as odd looking as in the seller's photo I posted earlier. I think it was just the lighting. It's definitely a correct engraving for this reference with the so-called "loose zero." Plenty of other examples out there just like this.

And the watch itself is the cleanest '80s Rolex I've ever handled, except in the '80s, of course, which is when I started wearing these.