When the Submariner Date 1680 was introduced?

[Mike Wood]

I have a Mk 1 Submariner-Date 1680 with the serial no. 209966*, and I'm pretty certain the caseback date code is I.69...

[ponycar350]

I will try to dig it out and share it.

[Racer X]

My MKI has a 2.1 million serial number and the caseback is stamped II.69 (the quarter and year of my birth ;)

[Haywood_Milton]

Originally Posted by ponycar350

I am fairly certain I have a 1.8 mill 1680

This I need to see.....

[ponycar350]

I believe I showed it to John Buckley years ago...

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by ponycar350

I believe I showed it to John Buckley years ago...

So, any update?

[FTX I]

You know what. Forget it.

[Haywood_Milton]

Speak for yourself!

I'd love to know more about a 1680 with a 1.8m case number.

It would set new boundaries if correct, when no one has yet demonstrated another single watch much below 2.1m.

H

Insta : haywood_milton_rolex

[FTX I]

Me too. I said that to myself yesterday when I edited my post.

[JonB]

I'll be getting my 1680 Red MkII back from Bob Ridley next week. The Serial is 2.21xx. I'll check with him about any marks inside the case.

[cajuntiger]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I was born in 1969 and always thought the Sub Date was older, but we may have a very interesting way to find out this year.

so when you were born you were thinking about Red Subs? :)

Originally Posted by FTX I

Another vote for 1966.

Based on what?

I have never seen a red sub with an earlier serial than 2mil...if you know of one then please share it. Otherwise there is no mystery at all.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by cajuntiger

so when you were born you were thinking about Red Subs? :)

Based on what?

I have never seen a red sub with an earlier serial than 2mil...if you know of one then please share it. Otherwise there is no mystery at all.

That was funny. :)

I don't know. It was something I always thought was true and that's why I started this thread. I changed my mind of course, but so far no proof only expert opinions. Can't understand why is so hard to have an old Rolex ad or Basel document or anything other than expert opinions but it is what it is.

[Styles Bitchley]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

Speak for yourself!

I'd love to know more about a 1680 with a 1.8m case number.

It would set new boundaries if correct, when no one has yet demonstrated another single watch much below 2.1m.

H

Insta : haywood_milton_rolex

Pretty sure pony car was misremembering the details, otherwise we’d have seen it. No harm in that. We all do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by cajuntiger

so when you were born you were thinking about Red Subs? :)

I don't know about him, but I was born thinking (dreaming really) of red subs.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Racer X

I don't know about him, but I was born thinking (dreaming really) of red subs.

Not me but it's a great reference no question.

[scooba]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

“Three prestigious books?”

This is all kinds of wrong.

Come on, let’s see examples of the earliest case numbers, as that may provide primary evidence in contrast to recycled and unsupported claims.

With all the resources of membership and the internet, we still seem to be at 2,1m for the red 1680, don’t we?

As for the 18ct gold 1680/8, the German booklet is interesting if the date code is correct. However, booklets are commonly printed months before use and it might support the introduction of the gold version alone in early 1968.

215xxxxx 1.69 case back single red sub MK1 meters first . Hope this helps

[Vincent65]

I've always believed it was '69