Best Rolex Dating Chart?

[Nick9]

Hi, all.

I know it's not and may never be an exact science, but I see considerable variation in the years assigned to Rolex watch serial numbers in the various charts offered online.

So, I'm wondering if there is any consensus about which one(s) are seen to be the most accurate.

Thanks!

[offrdmania]

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=54362

[Nick9]

Super, thanks!

[Harry49]

Nice one actually

[Blaner]

I prefer the becker time chart. https://beckertime.com/lookup-rolex-serial-by-year/

This one linked above doesn't make sense in a couple spots - like look at the spread from 1979-1980-1981...100k numbers advance in 1980 and then 7x that the following year...makes no sense - it's the same on the Bob's Watches site...doesnt make sense.

And I have seen warranty cards with serials in the 67xxxxx with 1980 sale dates...tough for something made in 1981 to be sold in 1980.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Blaner

I prefer the becker time chart. https://beckertime.com/lookup-rolex-serial-by-year/

This one linked above doesn't make sense in a couple spots - like look at the spread from 1979-1980-1981...100k numbers advance in 1980 and then 7x that the following year...makes no sense - it's the same on the Bob's Watches site...doesnt make sense.

And I have seen warranty cards with serials in the 67xxxxx with 1980 sale dates...tough for something made in 1981 to be sold in 1980.

The Beckertime one above is worse than useless. Rolex rebooted at 100,000 in the mid 1950s, not 1,000,000 as Beckertime shows. Rolex serials reached 1,000,000 sometime in 1964, but Beckertime already has them up to 1.7 million by then, which is all wrong. Bob's watches also used this chart for a while, before they fixed it up a bit a couple of years ago.

Vintagerolexforum.com used to have a really comprehensive serial number project going with a chronological list of hundreds of examples of serials with papers and casebacks and so on, but I can't find it any more.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Blaner

I prefer the becker time chart. https://beckertime.com/lookup-rolex-serial-by-year/

This one linked above doesn't make sense in a couple spots - like look at the spread from 1979-1980-1981...100k numbers advance in 1980 and then 7x that the following year...makes no sense - it's the same on the Bob's Watches site...doesnt make sense.

And I have seen warranty cards with serials in the 67xxxxx with 1980 sale dates...tough for something made in 1981 to be sold in 1980.

The Beckertime chart is absolutely dreadful. Truly. The 60s dates are off by hundreds of thousands. I can’t imagine how you thought it was close to accurate in shape or form.

[Blaner]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

The Beckertime chart is absolutely dreadful. Truly. The 60s dates are off by hundreds of thousands. I can’t imagine how you thought it was close to accurate in shape or form.

Well maybe it's off in the 60s - most of the stuff I have looked at is 70s/80s, but it's literally not possible for the one first linked to be correct. As I said, I have seen sales receipts dated 1980 for watches that the previously mentioned chart says weren't manufactured till 81.

I guess that this gets to is that, as evidenced by this discussion, there is no consensus on a "correct" chart.

Would you agree something seems off about 79-80-81 on it?

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Blaner

Would you agree something seems off about 79-80-81 on it?

On this chart? https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=54362

I can’t agree with you, I’m afraid. It’s pretty much on the mark (given some leeway a little bit here and there, but otherwise as accurate as I’ve seen). As an example, search for 1680s and 16800s for 1979 1980 and 1981 on the HQMilton site and compare the serial numbers. They all fit in the parameters of this chart quite well.

Cheers!

[Blaner]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

On this chart? https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=54362

I can’t agree with you, I’m afraid. It’s pretty much on the mark (given some leeway a little bit here and there, but otherwise as accurate as I’ve seen). As an example, search for 1680s and 16800s for 1979 1980 and 1981 on the HQMilton site and compare the serial numbers. They all fit in the parameters of this chart quite well.

Cheers!

Yep that's the one.
I have looked extensively through listings on Chrono, HQ, other trusted vintage sellers etc, and yes there are plenty of 1680, 5513, etc in that range for which the sales slips align with those dates - the year of most interest to me is 1980 (birth year research) and while I have seen plenty of 67xxxxx serials with sales slips dated 81 and 82, that alone wouldn't justify that as the mfr date, would it?

It's a science experiment (kind of) - you can't exactly prove that it's true definitively, but you CAN prove that it's untrue...sales slips for 67xxxxxx dated 1980 means it's impossible for the watch to have been manufactured in 1981 as that chart shows, correct?

Truly not trying to seem difficult or argumentative, but logically speaking I cannot see a way that's possible unless the slips I have seen showing 1980 for that range are all counterfeited.

Thoughts?

[Paulie 50]

I find the best of all is Oysteworld, you can reach it as a link through Double Red Sea Dweller site.

[Fredrik]

Originally Posted by Blaner

Well maybe it's off in the 60s - most of the stuff I have looked at is 70s/80s, but it's literally not possible for the one first linked to be correct. As I said, I have seen sales receipts dated 1980 for watches that the previously mentioned chart says weren't manufactured till 81.

You have to take into account that serial numbers were stamped when the case was made. This could be years before the finished watch was made and later sold depending on model. So matching a serial number to a year will always be off.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Blaner

. . .

Truly not trying to seem difficult or argumentative, but logically speaking I cannot see a way that's possible unless the slips I have seen showing 1980 for that range are all counterfeited.

Thoughts?

You are looking for absolutes in a more random process.

Rolex numbers are allocated for a specific run of a specific model. Every year does not see all of those allocations actually made. If there is slow movement in a model, those numbers allocated for one year will be carried over to another year.

If cases are stamped and not used, those too are warehoused until they are needed. Further, it is known that Rolex may have numbered model cases sequentially on paper, they didn't always manufacture complete watches sequentially.. In other words, the number 7 may have been completed before the number 2, and so on.

Sometimes you simply need to think that this is the closest you're going to get, barring actual data from the Mother Ship.

[Blaner]

Originally Posted by Tools

You are looking for absolutes in a more random process.

Rolex numbers are allocated for a specific run of a specific model. Every year does not see all of those allocations actually made. If there is slow movement in a model, those numbers allocated for one year will be carried over to another year.

If cases are stamped and not used, those too are warehoused until they are needed. Further, it is known that Rolex may have numbered model cases sequentially on paper, they didn't always manufacture complete watches sequentially.. In other words, the number 7 may have been completed before the number 2, and so on.

Sometimes you simply need to think that this is the closest you're going to get, barring actual data from the Mother Ship.

Understandable, but then I also take that plus the fact that in half of the charts I have seen, the year 1980 spans 644xxxx to 654xxxx or or whatever, which would also be odd given that every other year has a couple hundred thousand span of serials but this one lonely year happens to only have 100k? Smells funny to me.

[Tools]

To read our chart, 64xxxxx would be a 1980 mid-point number, with possibilities extending back to the 1979 mid, up to the 1981 mid.

There is always overlap. No chart can tell anybody with certainty that xxx to xxx was made in a certain year.

Charts give an estimate, plus or minus a year or so, not actual production data.

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by Tools

Charts give an estimate, plus or minus a year or so, not actual production data.

This is correct. It isn't an exact science. The case bearing the serial number could have been manufactured way before the watch was actually put together and sold.

The date inside the caseback often gives a better guide.

[Blaner]

Originally Posted by zapokee

This is correct. It isn't an exact science. The case bearing the serial number could have been manufactured way before the watch was actually put together and sold.

The date inside the caseback often gives a better guide.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I totally understand how a case or watch could be partially assembled and sold later...going that direction makes perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense is how could a watch that is manufactured, according to a chart, in 1981, have been sold in 1979?

I think the end of the discussion is simply that these things aren't accurate and many smart and dedicated people have done their best.

Which I can live with...

[X-Factor]

Really this just is an attempt to date watches that lack the original paperwork that seems hard to find these days on a lot of "vintage" pieces. I'm still a neophyte at best but actively searching for a legit 1983 reference that it seems is near impossible to do with any accuracy based soley on the serial number. Is that a roughly accurate assessment?

[Tools]

Originally Posted by X-Factor

Really this just is an attempt to date watches that lack the original paperwork that seems hard to find these days on a lot of "vintage" pieces. I'm still a neophyte at best but actively searching for a legit 1983 reference that it seems is near impossible to do with any accuracy based soley on the serial number. Is that a roughly accurate assessment?

This is correct. Paperwork is the true banner of "new". Even then, some folks want to argue because they saw it on an Internet Chart.

However, the charts were made based on that same paperwork, so they should become known data points to more refine dating, not argument points because they don't match published chart guesses.

[X-Factor]

But when different dealers advertisements regarding age and production differ, what to do?

[rmurphy]

I have a 16014 Datejust that has an 8.59 million serial number and most charts list it’s production year at 84-85 and my papers list it sold on 3/14/90, I also have the original credit card receipt. So it sat for a long time prior to being sold. It’s my oldest watch at the moment but I’ve dated all of my other watches and I’ve learned to just accept that it’s as close as I’ll ever know. I wish the warranty papers gave you it’s exact birthday but alas it doesn’t work that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[petereoin]

https://est1897.co.uk/serial-numbers...facture-online

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by petereoin

https://est1897.co.uk/serial-numbers...facture-online

This is a terrible chart. Off by miles. According to this chart, my 1966 5513 is from 1959. Please don’t use this one.

[Blaner]

Originally Posted by Tools

This is correct. Paperwork is the true banner of "new". Even then, some folks want to argue because they saw it on an Internet Chart.

However, the charts were made based on that same paperwork, so they should become known data points to more refine dating, not argument points because they don't match published chart guesses.

Right, I guess my question here is that the papers, by my logic, don't ever establish the date of manufacture, however, they DO establish a date AFTER WHICH the piece could not have been manufactured.

So if I have papers showing a sale date of June 1975, I don't know whether the watch was manufactured in 1975 or 1974 or 1972...but I DO know that the watch was not manufactured in 1976, yes?

So it seems to me that all of these charts would/should/could be living documents that evolve, and the only way they evolve is any time new papers come up showing a serial number and a date before the currently accepted date of manufacture, then the range must expand to include that new piece.

It seems black and white to me on this point, but if I am missing something please do tell.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Blaner

. . .
So if I have papers showing a sale date of June 1975, I don't know whether the watch was manufactured in 1975 or 1974 or 1972...but I DO know that the watch was not manufactured in 1976, yes?

. . .

You're putting a lot of effort into this. A watch doesn't age like a loaf of bread, so an actual manufacture date vs. sale date is pretty meaningless.

If you have a watch that you need to narrow down, you need to know each era characteristic. This is how dating was done before Internet Charts where even the lamest have been copied and pasted hundreds of times.

In your example, a 1975 would likely not have a date code inside the case back, but if it was actually 1972, it would. Also, the dial will mark a certain known era. Some models have a dozen Mkx labels for each iteration.

To make it even more confusing, TT and Gold models may have had a serial allocation one year, have not been used, and then actually manufactured years after a dating chart says. Some wrongly think that it has been sitting on display for those years, but charts only come close for the SS models. Precious metal models always lag by a year or more because they are not manufactured at the same rate.

Some seem to think that there is a mark they can look at, like a milk carton, but watches have never been that transparent.

[swish77]

Another complication in trying to pin down exact dates/years with vintage Rolexes, is that parts left over from previous years could be used on newer watches. If there were old (new) cases available with earlier date stamps, the Rolex factory would use them up, of course.

Here's a confirmed legit case back for a DRSD stamped "I 72" but with a serial numbered case of 5.2 million, which would put the watch at around 1977 (last batch of DRSDs). So, here's a case back that's about five years older than the actual watch, based on the date stamp.

If this "I 72" case back was on, say, a Submariner 5513 (without the engraved serial number, of course) and a case serial number of 5.2 million, a lot of folks would assume that the case back had been swapped because of the time difference shown on serial number charts. We shouldn't assume that would be the case.

[77T]

Why would anyone presume casebacks were made in fewer numbers than the cases themselves? The fabrication processes would churn out as many of each methinks.

So the date inside a caseback wouldn’t be any help in dating a model methinks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Nick9]

Lots of interesting comments. Thanks, everyone.

I'm going to go by the recommended serial number chart. But I'm also going to add "circa" to whatever year I come up with.

Thanks again.

[Gecko10]

Originally Posted by offrdmania

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=54362

Thank you!!

[zapokee]

Great thread.

Perhaps we could carbon-date each component. Just enjoy the watch. It's within a few years of where you think it's from. Believe it's a birth year piece if you want.