1680 Sub Bezel Insert Types

[Gina Marie]

I have read about multiple Mark I-VI bezel inserts. They all look the same to me, except for font size. How do I tell them apart?

[southtexas]

Oh boy, here we go ;)

Many varied opinions on this matter. There have been a number of good threads here and VRF discussing/debating the topic. Font (size/thickness/shape) are the way to tell them apart.

[wallasey runner]

Go on google, type in 1680 bezal inserts and click on the images tag. Pick one of the images that shows multiple inserts against each other and open that page.

I would recommend that you look at the 4 in 40 and the 5 in 50 as a starting point. Click on pictures of each numbers, zoom in as much as possible, open multiple tags if necessary and click from one to another.

The mark 1 has a kissing 40 - meaning the print of the 4 touches the 0 - the is little or no gap between the numbers.

Mark 2 has a longer 5 - look for the shape of the inner part of the lower bit - on some looks like a little hammer, on others looks like a little axe head.

Mark 3 is very similar to mark one, but definately no kissing on the 40.

Later marks are much thinner fonts. On the image below the inside of the 4 in 40 the top is flat - known as a flat top 40. On the marks 1 to 3 the inside goes to a point - like in a triange.

Check out the two fonts on the image below. The DRSD has a mark 3 fat font insert, the one in the little metal tin is a later thin font service dial.

[linesiders]

Keep in mind one man's MK1 is another man's Fat MK3

[Wing Zero]

Originally Posted by linesiders

Keep in mind one man's MK1 is another man's Fat MK3

+1

There were many confusions during the early days of mk designation.
The accepted nomenclature should be IMHO:

mk1 - Skinny 4 (early 60's)
mk2 - Long 5 FF (Mid 60's)
mk3 - Fresh 4, Medium wear 4 and Kissing 4 (results of printing pad wearing down) Late 60's and mid 70's

[Gina Marie]

So is this a mark 3 then? Early 70's production.....

[linesiders]

That insert is PERFECT for that watch.

[Gina Marie]

Last pic....this one is the best. tough to do via a smart phone.

[willang]

Originally Posted by bjmcfp

Last pic....this one is the best. tough to do via a smart phone.

Beautiful 1680! I think it's a mk3 insert from what I was told for mine.

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by bjmcfp

So is this a mark 3 then? Early 70's production.....

Yes sir, and a great looking watch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by wallasey runner

Go on google, type in 1680 bezal inserts and click on the images tag. Pick one of the images that shows multiple inserts against each other and open that page.

I would recommend that you look at the 4 in 40 and the 5 in 50 as a starting point. Click on pictures of each numbers, zoom in as much as possible, open multiple tags if necessary and click from one to another.

The mark 1 has a kissing 40 - meaning the print of the 4 touches the 0 - the is little or no gap between the numbers.

Mark 2 has a longer 5 - look for the shape of the inner part of the lower bit - on some looks like a little hammer, on others looks like a little axe head.

Mark 3 is very similar to mark one, but definately no kissing on the 40.

Later marks are much thinner fonts. On the image below the inside of the 4 in 40 the top is flat - known as a flat top 40. On the marks 1 to 3 the inside goes to a point - like in a triange.

Check out the two fonts on the image below. The DRSD has a mark 3 fat font insert, the one in the little metal tin is a later thin font service dial.

[SearChart]

Great info gentlemen, thanks!

[wallasey runner]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

If you find my posts so offence, why not just put me on ignore - at least i am attempting to assist the OP rather than behaving like an on-line troll.

[Vincent65]

Great MKIV red 1680, congrats. To me, the insert looks correct for the period and is what is considered to be a 'MKIII' by most, but also could be a 'MKI' to others. I've seen so-called MKIII inserts with kissing 4/0s, and I have 3 myself, which are fat-font and almost touch. In my humble view, the ones which touch have just bled more from worn pads when printed. It's largely down to the printing process, pads wearing etc. As far as I'm aware, as with most subtle variations in 'vintage' Rolex (dials for example) there's no definitive or official nomenclature, or exact timeline, and these terms have just been 'assigned' by collectors to try and differentiate the various iterations. Some are obviously more distinguishable than others, and easier to date to a period or reference. It's not a rigid science, and as with the inserts themselves, the lines are a little blurred! Just my couple of quid.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Great MKIV red 1680, congrats. To me, the insert looks correct for the period and is what is considered to be a 'MKIII' by most, but also could be a 'MKI' to others. I've seen so-called MKIII inserts with kissing 4/0s, and I have 3 myself, which are fat-font and almost touch. In my humble view, the ones which touch have just bled more from worn pads when printed. It's largely down to the printing process, pads wearing etc. As far as I'm aware, as with most subtle variations in 'vintage' Rolex (dials for example) there's no definitive or official nomenclature, or exact timeline, and these terms have just been 'assigned' by collectors to try and differentiate the various iterations. Some are obviously more distinguishable than others, and easier to date to a period or reference. It's not a rigid science, and as with the inserts themselves, the lines are a little blurred! Just my couple of quid.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!

Just like stated above (IMO correctly) there are lots of arguments and counter arguments on the naming conventions used to describe the MKX inserts and the best current naming used is still fluid and can mean something different to someone else.

[wallasey runner]

Originally Posted by linesiders

Ding, Ding, Ding!!

Just like stated above (IMO correctly) there are lots of arguments and counter arguments on the naming conventions used to describe the MKX inserts and the best current naming used is still fluid and can mean something different to someone else.

Completely agree, but various works on the web do try to put them into a number order with very approximate dates of when they would have been used. I agree that the insert on the 1680 is correct and most people may recognise as a mark 3 insert, right or wrong. What you wouldn't want is to put an insert on your watch that was clearly made 10 years before the watch.

Very difficult science to master, makes getting your head around the various dial easy by comparison.

Queuey the forum troll will be along in a moment with another stupid picture !!!

[Chunky]

What is the correct insert for a Mark V ?

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by wallasey runner

Completely agree, but various works on the web do try to put them into a number order with very approximate dates of when they would have been used. I agree that the insert on the 1680 is correct and most people may recognise as a mark 3 insert, right or wrong. What you wouldn't want is to put an insert on your watch that was clearly made 10 years before the watch.

Very difficult science to master, makes getting your head around the various dial easy by comparison.

Queuey the forum troll will be along in a moment with another stupid picture !!!

[Wesley Crusher]

,

[nycpassat]

lol

[stmoore]

Originally Posted by wallasey runner

Mark 2 has a longer 5 - look for the shape of the inner part of the lower bit - on some looks like a little hammer, on others looks like a little axe head.

There are two different mk2 inserts. A long 5 and a non long 5 - FYI.

[stmoore]

Originally Posted by bjmcfp

So is this a mark 3 then? Early 70's production.....

Correct, that's the first run of MK3 inserts. For this insert the "tell" is the 4.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by stmoore

There are two different mk2 inserts. A long 5 and a non long 5 - FYI.

Example of the non Long 5, please? You don't mean the Skinny 4?