ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
26 December 2012, 09:38 PM | #31 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
|
27 January 2017, 08:36 PM | #32 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 47
|
Well. To revive an old and interesting thread that ended rather abruptly – I thought I would post my question here for the benefit of future readers rather than create a new thread.
My question is pretty simple – does anyone know if a '78 1675 could have been sold at the time on a 7836 with 258EL's? As much as I like the 7836, I also really like keeping it real, period wise. Thanks in advance! |
27 January 2017, 10:13 PM | #33 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Per
Location: Sweden
Watch: Gilt Rolex
Posts: 2,946
|
Quote:
Any x58 end is common on a plastic GMT depending on bracelet. 258 on a 7836 is perfectly fine. |
|
27 January 2017, 11:51 PM | #35 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 47
|
Thanks guys.
Not to cast any doubt whatsoever on your assertion, just wondering how we know this. Do we know what year Rolex stopped production of the 7836...which, if history is any guide, might not be the same year they stopped shipping watches with it. Catalogs? Or is it just common knowledge? As a casual observer of vintage Rolex, I had the impression the vaunted folded link was not found on much of anything after the second half of the 1970's. Would be very cool if the 7836/258 on my '69 1016 could do double-duty on a later model 1675 without issue. |
27 January 2017, 11:55 PM | #36 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Per
Location: Sweden
Watch: Gilt Rolex
Posts: 2,946
|
Quote:
Basically you could have any watch on any bracelet back in the days. There's really nothing right or wrong. |
|
28 January 2017, 01:22 AM | #38 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 47
|
Interesting, Lee. Thanks again, all. And I buy what you're saying. But! :-) ...the folded link 7836 did go out of production at some point. I'd be curious to know roughly when. Was the 78360 introduced as it's replacement?
|
28 January 2017, 02:17 AM | #39 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: jP
Location: Texas
Watch: GMT-MASTER
Posts: 17,194
|
Correct. The 78360 replaced the 7836 but both the 7836 and 78360 were available together for a couple years once the 7836 was introduced.
__________________
Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics. |
28 January 2017, 04:54 PM | #40 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 47
|
Quote:
I've had look around for the answer but didn't find anything more conclusive than "late 70's to early 80's". And yet this seems entirely knowable. Even if we don't know in which region or on what model it first appeared, the year really must be discernable. Would be keen to know, for knowings sake. |
|
28 January 2017, 05:07 PM | #41 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: jP
Location: Texas
Watch: GMT-MASTER
Posts: 17,194
|
Quote:
__________________
Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics. |
|
28 January 2017, 06:44 PM | #42 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 47
|
Very helpful. Thanks.
Would it be fair to say that by the close of the 1970's you could find a GMT from a Rolex AD with a 7836, a 78360, or (in the US) a C&I rivet... |
28 January 2017, 09:12 PM | #44 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Per
Location: Sweden
Watch: Gilt Rolex
Posts: 2,946
|
Yes. As previously mentioned you could find all types in 1978. There is no cut off date when solid links appeared and folded dissapeared. Looking at catalogues you will also see all different types depending on market etc. Pick your poison depending on what you prefer. Nothing will be considered more correct compared to the other.
|
29 January 2017, 12:35 AM | #45 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Real Name: Tom
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,172
|
Quote:
|
|
29 January 2017, 03:11 AM | #46 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 47
|
Quote:
Perhaps this resource already exists. If not, and if you're sitting on a trove of scanned materials, PM me and I'll make sure they get hosted somewhere everyone can see them. |
|
29 January 2017, 04:29 AM | #47 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Per
Location: Sweden
Watch: Gilt Rolex
Posts: 2,946
|
It really isn't as dials, bezels etc as bracelets were more various depending on customer, AD, market etc
Oysters: Swiss rivets until late 60's US rivets until late 70's Folded bracelets from late 60's until late 70's and also even later as service part Solid oyster from mid 70's During this time you will see a big overlap. Same goes for jubilees where you have folded and solid versions all-over depending on market and year. There really isn't anything correct but you could say that the most modern type available is the most accepted version for every watch. That does not mean that other possible versions are wrong.. As for end links you will see 58 and 80 versions for GMT's and Explorers and 80 versions for Submariners. Still an overlap here as well as AD's sold whatever they had and whatever the customer wanted for their model. Two digit ends for Swiss rivets and 3xx/2xx ends for folded (3xx is fixed ends and 2xx are lose). For solid oysters the ends are named 5xx and on the cheap American C-I oyster the ends are unmarked and one size fits all. |
30 January 2017, 02:40 AM | #48 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,293
|
As this thread has been revived, I thought I'd add some grist to the mill.
Here's another example of a very nice 1680, from a respected dealer most will recognise as an authority on the subject, who also happens to be the gent from whom I procured mine. This is a 2.4mil 'M'-first' variant, and mine was just a matter of months later, at 2.6mil, and a very early MKIV. This may not sit well with those who are hung up on what 'should be' - whatever that is... PS The watch quickly sold to a [no doubt] discerning collector (is he included in the 'any collector' group, and does he give a .... I wonder?)
__________________
|
30 January 2017, 04:33 AM | #49 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Real Name: Tom
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,172
|
thanks
Quote:
My rivit bracelet does not have a style reference number anywhere on it and its a 2.1m, IV68 stamped GMT (receipt says sold in 1/71). To be clear, the bracelet is not original but I was told is period correct, clasp is stamped 3 over 69. |
|
30 January 2017, 05:23 AM | #50 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Hesperia
Posts: 280
|
great GMT
love the gmt
|
5 December 2018, 12:32 PM | #51 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PI
Posts: 163
|
is that a service insert on the 1675? the dial looks like a LONG E
What year is this brochure? |
5 December 2018, 12:34 PM | #52 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PI
Posts: 163
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.