16233 Question

[1WatchDawg]

What series was the 16233 first offered with a no-holes case?

[crowncollection]

Originally Posted by 1WatchDawg

What series was the 16233 first offered with a no-holes case?

s prefix

[Hawaii2017]

Last year with HOLES I believe was 1993 of what was left in stock/inventory and 1994 was the beginning of the NO HOLES/HOLES mixed?

Can someone confirm this?

Thanks!

[MonBK]

Yes, see above. ^

[Hawaii2017]

...is there preferences as to some like it holes and some don't?

[dbhak22]

Originally Posted by Hawaii2017

...is there preferences as to some like it holes and some don't?

Yes. Two primary reasons:

1. AESTHETICS: No holes have a cleaner profile. Although some actually like the look of the holes.
2. BRACELET REMOVAL: Lug holes make it easier to take the bracelet/straps off for those that like to put it on different straps.

[Hawaii2017]

Gotcha, thanks for the wonderful insight. But don't you think with having holes could somehow have dirt enter in? Nonetheless maybe minimal.

[dbhak22]

Originally Posted by Hawaii2017

Gotcha, thanks for the wonderful insight. But don't you think with having holes could somehow have dirt enter in? Nonetheless maybe minimal.

I have a GMT w/ lug holes that I wore every day for over 10 years without ever taking off the bracelet and the first time I did, the spring bars popped out no problem (ie. no dirt build up).

On the flip side, I bought an older Datejust and could not get the spring bars to budge at all to remove the bracelet. But I soaked the tips of the lugs (just enough so the lug holes were submerged but the case was not) in hot soapy water for a number of hours to loosen up the dirt/grime inside and then removed the bracelet. But even in this case, you couldn't "see" the dirt in the lug hole.

So in short, non issue in my opinion.

[Hawaii2017]

But since then on Rolex did stay away from lug holes completely on all models along the board.
This is a marker when and where the old and the new begins which is a nice transition.