ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Wahlberg · 1 July 2020, 09:31 PM

Which watch has the correct form/shape of the lugs. The way the lugs should be and look when it was released. It just confuses me when I see the same watch, from the same year and the lugs look rather different. Is this a dealbreaker for some?

I try to keep an eye out on a 16700/16710 and sometimes I think ''this one is good'', has a sharp/thick case and lugs and then I take a better look and notice the lugs are a bit different. I don't mind polishing but those details I'd like to have correct. The same goes for the crownguards.

And when you go back in time and look at all the 5513s/1675s you see so many different lug variants. I realize there have been a lot of changes from Rolex out, especially in the early days, but it seems like a lot of watch makers went to work and re-shaped as they desired or think it should have been.

Am I correct in my observation? Just wanted to hear some opinions, not to bash a watch or someone. Just so I can keep an eye out on the details.

Rolex 16700 - 1990 - source from the recent Philips auction - NOS.

Rolex 16700 - 1996 - source HQMilton - here you see at the end of the lug, it slopes down. This is different than the 1990 16700 from Philips.

16700 - 1996 - source tropicalwatch. Here you see a bit more detail in the chamfer (?) than the ones above.

16700 - 1996 - near NOS shape (advertised like this). This one is different than the one listed above. The line is straight, so not as it supposed to be? It's not like the ones above. So this one has been worked on? These were the only pictures, nothing else. Watch is sold btw, old listing.

16700 - 1997 - source watchclub. This one looks pretty good and tight lug-wise. Watch is sold, was an old listing.

Wahlberg · 2 July 2020, 06:14 AM

Someone? Anyone?

Edit: I was stupid and the images were removed. Shit...

Rolex 16700 - 1990 - source from the recent Philips auction - NOS.

Rolex 16700 - 1996 - source HQMilton - here you see at the end of the lug, it slopes down. This is different than the 1990 16700 from Philips.

16700 - 1996 - source tropicalwatch. Here you see a bit more detail in the chamfer (?) than the ones above.

16700 - 1996 - near NOS shape (advertised like this). This one is different than the one listed above. The line is straight, so not as it supposed to be? It's not like the ones above. So this one has been worked on? These were the only pictures, nothing else. Watch is sold btw, old listing.

16700 - 1997 - source watchclub. This one looks pretty good and tight lug-wise. Watch is sold, was an old listing.

Crazy Lugs · 2 July 2020, 06:18 AM

Obviously it seems to vary. Pick the best example at the price you can afford and be happy!

Wahlberg · 2 July 2020, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Lugs

Obviously it seems to vary. Pick the best example at the price you can afford and be happy!

I understand this, but at some point everything seems to get blurry.

All the dealers write ''excellent condition'', they are the experts in the end but do not properly describe the watch. I've seen people write ''bracelet in perfect shape'' when it's literally struggling to stay together and with a lot of stretch. Same for the lugs, same for crownguards that go missing.

1665fan · 2 July 2020, 09:29 AM

I don’t think the one with the big chamfers is original....that’s how Rolex did the watches in the 60s....

dricig · 2 July 2020, 09:45 AM

You will get different opinions on each of these watches regarding original or polished.
I never understood why someone would send their watch to get "chamfers" when that is only removing metal and rounding off a crisp lug edge.

Crazy Lugs · 2 July 2020, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wahlberg

I understand this, but at some point everything seems to get blurry.

All the dealers write ''excellent condition'', they are the experts in the end but do not properly describe the watch. I've seen people write ''bracelet in perfect shape'' when it's literally struggling to stay together and with a lot of stretch. Same for the lugs, same for crownguards that go missing.

Use this as a reference example. The lugs are factory fresh from Geneva:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B9Zk-Xjn...=1c35y57vohvnw

1 July 2020, 09:31 PM	#1
Wahlberg "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Paris Posts: 3,549	What is the correct shape of the lug - Rolex 16700 Which watch has the correct form/shape of the lugs. The way the lugs should be and look when it was released. It just confuses me when I see the same watch, from the same year and the lugs look rather different. Is this a dealbreaker for some? I try to keep an eye out on a 16700/16710 and sometimes I think ''this one is good'', has a sharp/thick case and lugs and then I take a better look and notice the lugs are a bit different. I don't mind polishing but those details I'd like to have correct. The same goes for the crownguards. And when you go back in time and look at all the 5513s/1675s you see so many different lug variants. I realize there have been a lot of changes from Rolex out, especially in the early days, but it seems like a lot of watch makers went to work and re-shaped as they desired or think it should have been. Am I correct in my observation? Just wanted to hear some opinions, not to bash a watch or someone. Just so I can keep an eye out on the details. Rolex 16700 - 1990 - source from the recent Philips auction - NOS. Rolex 16700 - 1996 - source HQMilton - here you see at the end of the lug, it slopes down. This is different than the 1990 16700 from Philips. 16700 - 1996 - source tropicalwatch. Here you see a bit more detail in the chamfer (?) than the ones above. 16700 - 1996 - near NOS shape (advertised like this). This one is different than the one listed above. The line is straight, so not as it supposed to be? It's not like the ones above. So this one has been worked on? These were the only pictures, nothing else. Watch is sold btw, old listing. 16700 - 1997 - source watchclub. This one looks pretty good and tight lug-wise. Watch is sold, was an old listing.

2 July 2020, 09:45 AM	#6
dricig "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Dave Location: NY Metro Posts: 680	You will get different opinions on each of these watches regarding original or polished. I never understood why someone would send their watch to get "chamfers" when that is only removing metal and rounding off a crisp lug edge. __________________ Rolex 15010 Date -16013 TT DJ 16610LV -16750 GMT-16600 SD 16710 GMT -Tudor 79280

2 July 2020, 06:14 AM	#2
Wahlberg "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Paris Posts: 3,549	Someone? Anyone? Edit: I was stupid and the images were removed. Shit... Rolex 16700 - 1990 - source from the recent Philips auction - NOS. Rolex 16700 - 1996 - source HQMilton - here you see at the end of the lug, it slopes down. This is different than the 1990 16700 from Philips. 16700 - 1996 - source tropicalwatch. Here you see a bit more detail in the chamfer (?) than the ones above. 16700 - 1996 - near NOS shape (advertised like this). This one is different than the one listed above. The line is straight, so not as it supposed to be? It's not like the ones above. So this one has been worked on? These were the only pictures, nothing else. Watch is sold btw, old listing. 16700 - 1997 - source watchclub. This one looks pretty good and tight lug-wise. Watch is sold, was an old listing.

2 July 2020, 06:18 AM	#3
Crazy Lugs "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: USA Posts: 855	Obviously it seems to vary. Pick the best example at the price you can afford and be happy!

2 July 2020, 09:29 AM	#5
1665fan "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: East coast Posts: 6,628	I don’t think the one with the big chamfers is original....that’s how Rolex did the watches in the 60s....

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)