168000, Triple Zero Patina

[Wingslogo]

Would it be correct if not all triple zero subs had patina on the dial?

Looking at a complete set locally and the only consideration I have is possibly the dial has been replaced because it still looks so clean?

What thoughts do any of you have?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan S]

I believe that the original dial would have been tritium, and that dial is luminova.

[Wingslogo]

Originally Posted by Dan S

I believe that the original dial would have been tritium, and that dial is luminova.

Sorta what I thought… any way to tell the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TimeLord2]

I believe if it says SWISS MADE at the bottom of the dial it is Luminova. Should be
SWISS T < 25 for Tritium.

[Wingslogo]

Originally Posted by TimeLord2

I believe if it says SWISS MADE at the bottom of the dial it is Luminova. Should be
SWISS T &lt; 25 for Tritium.

Thoughts on dial being original?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan S]

I think your question has been answered. Assuming that it is indeed a 168000, this is a 1980s watch that came originally with a tritium dial marked with a T at the bottom. The markings on the bottom of the OP dial indicate that it is luminova, not tritium.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Wingslogo

Thoughts on dial being original?

Not a chance.

The Triple zero was made from '87 to ~'89, a full decade before the Swiss Made dials shown on this example were made.

[Wingslogo]

Originally Posted by Tools

Not a chance.

The Triple zero was made from '87 to ~'89, a full decade before the Swiss Made dials shown on this example were made.

Thank You!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[baumare]

Looks like is a service dial, "original" from Rolex but not original to a 168000...

[swish77]

For comparison, here is the original dial on my 168000 (9.3 million, 1986):

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by swish77

For comparison, here is the original dial on my 168000 (9.3 million, 1986):

That has aged really nicely, Aaron.

[hutch300]

Unless I had already found the period correct dial/hands a watch like that would be a pass. Lots of good period correct ones out there. If the price is right though maybe you don't mind.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Dan S

That has aged really nicely, Aaron.

Thank you, Dan! It's one of my keepers, for sure.

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by swish77

For comparison, here is the original dial on my 168000 (9.3 million, 1986):

Aaron, your collection never ceases to amaze me.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Filipão

Aaron, your collection never ceases to amaze me.

Thank you, Filipe! I've pared it down through the years. Just keeping the very best examples.

[TheDude]

Something not yet mentioned… since it appears the pip and maybe the insert (should the period insert have a flat/fat 4 on the 40?), dial and hands have been replaced - the watch will actually glow and be functionally useful in dark environments. The OP may value that.


Edit - upon further investigation… the 2 on the 20 is different (newer) on the OP photo vs the original one posted by Aaron.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[drefrank]

Here’s another example for comparison. Bought this new from an AD in 1988.

[Xyza0722]

My 168000 all original

[TheDude]

Yeah - both of those originals have a different 2 in the 20 (the curved part on the right side goes lower before the diagonal). There’s also more curve at the bottom left of the diagonal on the original insert. The OP photo has a more modern 2 with the diagonal starting much higher on the right and with a sharp angle at the bottom left of the diagonal.

Original on left…





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rwc1313]

Could the insert/dial/hands all just be service parts? Isn't the font on service inserts different than an original? Obviously not as desirable to most collectors but maybe someone would value them in terms of function as mentioned above. If advertised as service parts and the price reflects that it might not be a bad deal.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Rwc1313

Could the insert/dial/hands all just be service parts? Isn't the font on service inserts different than an original? Obviously not as desirable to most collectors but maybe someone would value them in terms of function as mentioned above. If advertised as service parts and the price reflects that it might not be a bad deal.

There is nothing wrong with the watch.

The question was is the dial original, which it is not.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by Tools

There is nothing wrong with the watch.

The question was is the dial original, which it is not.

Correct, but the OP should go into the purchase with eyes wide open. Likely everything stated is accurate - service dial+hands+insert/pip.

That clasp appears to be brand new also… but that’s probably a good thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TuRo]

I'd expect 30-35 % off going rate on a 168000 for a post 2000 service dial version. Same with say a 90s 14060/16610 or perhaps 40% on a 16800 pre 8.5 million with a gloss service dial.
As we all know horses for courses....at the low end of the scale, a 36mm DJ 80s batton luminova service dial affects price by perhaps just 5-10%.... but a 80s 6263/6265 or 1680 Red, 1665 DR can affect it by 50-70%...the older and rarer they get the bigger the variance becomes though so it's not static.

[Tavli3]

Originally Posted by swish77

For comparison, here is the original dial on my 168000 (9.3 million, 1986):

Beautiful Zorro dial!! Weren’t these made from late 88 to early 89? Mine is 88. I was under impression these only had 9 months production Is this not correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Tavli3

Beautiful Zorro dial!! Weren’t these made from late 88 to early 89? Mine is 88. I was under impression these only had 9 months production Is this not correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks! That is not correct, although I've seen that written online in a couple of places. The first 168000s were low 9 million serials, which is 1986. Mine is a 9.3 million and my bracelet clasp is stamped K4, for April '86. Only the very early batches had the "Zorro" dials.

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by swish77

Thanks! That is not correct, although I've seen that written online in a couple of places. The first 168000s were low 9 million serials, which is 1986. Mine is a 9.3 million and my bracelet clasp is stamped K4, for April '86. Only the very early batches had the "Zorro" dials.

Aaron, would you please enlighten me regarding the "Zorro dial"?

Thank you so much!

[Tavli3]

Look at the S in submariner it’s more of a z thus the Zorro dial. Much less of them than the standard S dials and even fewer with perfect patina.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tavli3]

Originally Posted by swish77

Thanks! That is not correct, although I've seen that written online in a couple of places. The first 168000s were low 9 million serials, which is 1986. Mine is a 9.3 million and my bracelet clasp is stamped K4, for April '86. Only the very early batches had the "Zorro" dials.

So is the short 9 month production run true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[baumare]

Originally Posted by Filipão

Aaron, would you please enlighten me regarding the "Zorro dial"?

Thank you so much!

Also called the “Zubmariner”…

[Filipão]

@Tavli3 & @baumare

Thank you, it makes sense!

It seems I am pretty familiar with one of the Zorro iterations... though a little bit older!