16800 defect or funny business?

[Ascari_2]

Hi all,

So I recently came across an interesting 1984 16800 with an 8.2 mil serial. At first glance everything seems to be in order. However, upon close examination the dial reveals something interesting ... it looks like it's been stamped twice. Comparing the text font and other features, with the exception of the double stamping it looks to be a MKIV dial with all the right features. But the fact that it seems to have been overstamped certainly raises some questions.

So with that said, what am I looking at here? Has anyone here every seen anything like this?

All feedback is greatly appreciated.

(Click the image for a full-resolution version)

[Ascari_2]

Some additional pictures under a microscope.

[Deepsea Florida]

Fugazi

[Computantis]

Really interested in what the experts have to say. On one hand I see how this could be authentic but I don’t believe that an obvious mistake could leave the factory.

The font looks fake, though (IMO).

[SDREW22]

You might get more responses if you move this to the" Vintage" forum

[MorningTundra]

Is the minute track and the SWISS - T<25 also double printed? My understanding is the manufacturer (Singer, Beyler, Stern) delivered dials without the lower-spec text, leaving Rolex to do this. The top and bottom here, appear to be done at the same time.

[springer]

When compared with a genuine matte 16900 dial, it appears to be a printing error or a double-strike misprint. The coronet and fonts on the 16800 up for discussion match the genuine dial. Mistakes happen. Printing error double-strikes are not that uncommon.

[swish77]

Just to eliminate an obvious possibility ...

Did the OP take these photos or did the seller take them and email the OP the photos? Is it possible that it's just a photo with a little movement, causing that slight blur on the font? I see other parts of the watch are sharp, but photos and lighting can be weird sometimes.

Probably not, but just throwing it out there.

[Ascari_2]

Originally Posted by Computantis

Really interested in what the experts have to say. On one hand I see how this could be authentic but I don’t believe that an obvious mistake could leave the factory.

The font looks fake, though (IMO).

When you say the font looks fake, my reference for a comparison was this https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...8&postcount=15

Maybe I am missing something, but to me the font sure sure looks similar.

[1665fan]

I’d go with printing error....letters are too crisp

[Ascari_2]

Originally Posted by SDREW22

You might get more responses if you move this to the" Vintage" forum

Sorry, thought I posted in the vintage section. My apologies.

[Ascari_2]

Originally Posted by swish77

Just to eliminate an obvious possibility ...

Did the OP take these photos or did the seller take them and email the OP the photos? Is it possible that it's just a photo with a little movement, causing that slight blur on the font? I see other parts of the watch are sharp, but photos and lighting can be weird sometimes.

Probably not, but just throwing it out there.

Those are my own photos. I have the watch in my possession for examination and will post a few more pictures shortly, including the "SWISS - T." Funny that you mention it, but when I took my first few minutes I was confused about why I was getting the "camera shake" when I was on a tripod. So no, it is not camera shake, and you can tell this seeing a lack of such distortion on the hands/lume plots.

[CF999]

Why choose this example?

[Kingface66]

I can’t imagine Rolex would release an example with such a defect.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

I can’t imagine Rolex would release an example with such a defect.

Sorry Andy but I'm not with you on this one. Besides the printing double strike, it is very hard to distinguish or notice unless you are looking for it or have it under magnification.

Rolex does make mistakes like any other company or governmental body. How about the pat pending diver extension snafu with the misspelling.

[FrenchBigCrown]

Originally Posted by springer

Sorry Andy but I'm not with you on this one. Besides the printing double strike, it is very hard to distinguish or notice unless you are looking for it or have it under magnification.

Rolex does make mistakes like any other company or governmental body. How about the pat pending diver extension snafu with the misspelling.

And, Daytona 'APH' dials.

[-dustin]

the elusive Drunk Dial.

[newkidonblock4]

https://watchcharts.com/listings?q=1...isting/3873053

I remember seeing the same thing on the dial I linked and assumed it was fake.

Guess maybe it's a real 1655 dial.

[ciceroyeah]

Looks neat, definitely not impossible that this left the Rolex factory in the early 1980s as they simply did not have the same degree of quality control at that time. The effect is slightly headache inducing at high magnification because it makes me feel like my eyes are out of focus.

[Ascari_2]

Originally Posted by CF999

Why choose this example?

Because I have an opportunity to buy it, so why not. It's clearly not an obvious fake, so why not explore the opportunity.

Originally Posted by springer

Sorry Andy but I'm not with you on this one. Besides the printing double strike, it is very hard to distinguish or notice unless you are looking for it or have it under magnification.

Rolex does make mistakes like any other company or governmental body. How about the pat pending diver extension snafu with the misspelling.

Hopefully the pictures below can shed some additional light on the quality of the print/exact font used. If there seems to be some aspect-ration distortion, the microscope does that on its own. For that I would suggest looking at the pictures posted up top.

Originally Posted by ciceroyeah

Looks neat, definitely not impossible that this left the Rolex factory in the early 1980s as they simply did not have the same degree of quality control at that time. The effect is slightly headache inducing at high magnification because it makes me feel like my eyes are out of focus.

Looking at the watch under normal viewing conditions this issue is completely unnoticeable. I only saw this when I looked at the zoomed in pictures.

Originally Posted by MorningTundra

Is the minute track and the SWISS - T<25 also double printed? My understanding is the manufacturer (Singer, Beyler, Stern) delivered dials without the lower-spec text, leaving Rolex to do this. The top and bottom here, appear to be done at the same time.

It looks like the SWISS track is double-printed, while the minute markers are not. However, the minute markers seem to have a characteristic tip. Anyhow, hope the photos below can shed some additional light.

[dhknola]

I love it! It reminds me of double-die coin error.

[JustinK]

So I have not seen much appreciation in the vintage community for poorly printed dials.

I would pass unless its cheap but certainly not pay extra for an "error dial".

[Ascari_2]

Originally Posted by JustinK

So I have not seen much appreciation in the vintage community for poorly printed dials.

I would pass unless its cheap but certainly not pay extra for an "error dial".

Assuming it's a genuine and original dial, the price point is one that I would be happy with even if error dials aren't "prized." Main concern is just understanding if this is a genuine piece or one that's been fiddled with.

[Dan S]

Friday afternoon dial. ;-)

[Ascari_2]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Friday afternoon dial. ;-)

We're almost there!

[saxo3]

Great thread
I love the study with these nice high resolution pics. What microscope you are using?

[1665fan]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

I can’t imagine Rolex would release an example with such a defect.

There was an oyster date they released and sold 1-2 years that had 4 stick markers at the 3 o’clock position and just looked crazy as heck.....they made mistakes then, they make them now lol

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

I can’t imagine Rolex would release an example with such a defect.

Why not?
Rolex also released watches with 32xx movements, which were crap.

[Ascari_2]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Great thread
I love the study with these nice high resolution pics. What microscope you are using?

Something similar to this. Not the most advanced thing in the world, but works surprisingly well for non-microscopic jobs.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Ascari_2

Something similar to this. Not the most advanced thing in the world, but works surprisingly well for non-microscopic jobs.

Thanks!
Can you determine how much the second print is off? It must be a few 10s of micrometers only.