1973 birth year

[HACKNSACK44]

I'm wanting to get a Rolex for my birth year. The only reference I have seen says 1973 serial 3741300. Is there any other references?

[BaltimoreBrian]

Originally Posted by HACKNSACK44

I'm wanting to get a Rolex for my birth year. The only reference I have seen says 1973 serial 3741300. Is there any other references?

1972 was the last year for most Rolex models to get a year Stamp. From there it's a serial number game

[HACKNSACK44]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreBrian

1972 was the last year for most Rolex models to get a year Stamp. From there it's a serial number game

I missed the Stamp by one year . I see watches listed and they say they are from 73 but I'm not sure how they know it's from 73.

[BaltimoreBrian]

Using the serial number you can get pretty close with Rolex. But definitely not a science.

Some people will see a sales receipt or date on warranty papers and kinda use that as a birth year document, but some rolex's sat in the case for a year or more before being sold and could actually be older than the sales receipt.

Seiko was really good about dating their pieces. FYI

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by HACKNSACK44

I missed the Stamp by one year . I see watches listed and they say they are from 73 but I'm not sure how they know it's from 73.

You really don't, for sure. I have the same issues with 1975. I would google "vintage Rolex case number project" and look there. If you are not as picky about specifics then Bernard Watch has a page on their site that I use often. It says 1973 will be around a 3.7m serial number. Good Luck!!

A 1975 has been tough sledding for me for a gold DJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HACKNSACK44]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreBrian

Using the serial number you can get pretty close with Rolex. But definitely not a science.

Some people will see a sales receipt or date on warranty papers and kinda use that as a birth year document, but some rolex's sat in the case for a year or more before being sold and could actually be older than the sales receipt.

Seiko was really good about dating their pieces. FYI

So anything in the ballpark I guess. Thanks for the info.

[HACKNSACK44]

Originally Posted by bdex75

You really don't, for sure. I have the same issues with 1975. I would google "vintage Rolex case number project" and look there. If you are not as picky about specifics then Bernard Watch has a page on their site that I use often. It says 1973 will be around a 3.7m serial number. Good Luck!!

A 1975 has been tough sledding for me for a gold DJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the info! I'm looking for a Sub. Hopefully you will come across a 75 gold DJ.

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by HACKNSACK44

Thanks for the info! I'm looking for a Sub. Hopefully you will come across a 75 gold DJ.

Subs and GMT's are out there. You will be all good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BaltimoreBrian]

Yeah man. My 1680 is a 72 and stamped. But casebacks didn't get stamped in 73

[swish77]

A little bit of a guessing game. I've seen original cases as late as early 4 mil. serial numbers (not replacement cases) stamped '72 inside the caseback, but serial-number charts put them a couple of years later. I've also seen a confirmed 1972 watch with an AD-stamped Rolex certifcate dated in 1980. Yup, it took 8 years to sell.

Still, whatever method you use to determine the year, you should be able to get pretty close. Personally, I'd still hunt a watch based on condition, not the year. Good luck.

[HACKNSACK44]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreBrian

Yeah man. My 1680 is a 72 and stamped. But casebacks didn't get stamped in 73

I could get a 72 for.. well you know

[HACKNSACK44]

This is what is confusing. A 73 has serial 3741300 a 74 has serial 4004200. Someone is selling a 74 with serial 393XXXX. How does anyone really know since it's not stamped like a 72.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by HACKNSACK44

This is what is confusing. A 73 has serial 3741300 a 74 has serial 4004200. Someone is selling a 74 with serial 393XXXX. How does anyone really know since it's not stamped like a 72.

Simple answer: No one really knows. That's why getting a birth year watch, especially after 1972, is a bit of a crap shoot if you're trying to pin it down exactly.

Even before 1972, with case backs that are stamped with a quarter and year, it can be tricky. For example, a vintage Sub that has a case back stamped, say, "IV 69," with a 2.3 mil serial case, might have been fully assembled and shipped in 1970 and then sold in 1972. What year is that watch? (Rhetorical question).

[jvmartin]

Originally Posted by swish77

Simple answer: No one really knows. That's why getting a birth year watch, especially after 1972, is a bit of a crap shoot if you're trying to pin it down exactly.

Even before 1972, with case backs that are stamped with a quarter and year, it can be tricky. For example, a vintage Sub that has a case back stamped, say, "IV 69," with a 2.3 mil serial case, might have been fully assembled and shipped in 1970 and then sold in 1972. What year is that watch? (Rhetorical question).

I always took it as production year... occasionally a vintage watch will come up with papers that are stamped with the sale date, but this still might be a couple years off.. lesser produced models did have a tendency to sit back in the old days

[HACKNSACK44]

I will look for a Sub that is in great condition. That is what really matters.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by HACKNSACK44

This is what is confusing. A 73 has serial 3741300 a 74 has serial 4004200. Someone is selling a 74 with serial 393XXXX. How does anyone really know since it's not stamped like a 72.

Rolex did not produce watches in a known sequence, even though some folks seem to think so, and charts are loosely based on that. Dowling-Hess; Best of Time, research confirms this no-strict-sequence production history.

Numbers may have been allocated in sequence, but there is no reason or history to know or show that Rolex ever actually manufactured their watches in the same sequence.

You have to get away from the mind-set that your model serial numbers covered the entire 1,000,000 number range. Those numbers were used for every model throughout the line.

[HACKNSACK44]

Originally Posted by Tools

Rolex did not produce watches in a known sequence, even though some folks seem to think so, and charts are loosely based on that. Dowling-Hess; Best of Time, research confirms this no-strict-sequence production history.

Numbers may have been allocated in sequence, but there is no reason or history to know or show that Rolex ever actually manufactured their watches in the same sequence.

You have to get away from the mind-set that your model serial numbers covered the entire 1,000,000 number range. Those numbers were used for every model throughout the line.

Thanks for the info.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by HACKNSACK44

Thanks for the info.

What it means is, pick what you think is close because that's as good as it's gonna get...

[RGAmos]

I have a gold sub 1680/8 SN: 3142630 which I purchased new in April 1974. The watch came with proper documentation; so, I am pretty sure it was indeed new at purchase.

[HACKNSACK44]

Originally Posted by RGAmos

I have a gold sub 1680/8 SN: 3142630 which I purchased new in April 1974. The watch came with proper documentation; so, I am pretty sure it was indeed new at purchase.

That's awesome! What I am hearing is you might have purchased it in April 1974 but there is no way to know when it was produced. Did it sit in a case for years before you bought it? I'm just going to look for something in my birth year range.

[jeff hess]

SWish and Tools have it right.

While Rolex did in fact do things in a rather linear organized way, there many cases of "out of sequence numbering".

We based our dating on info from long time Rolex employees as well as co-ordinating the number of "Victories" bragged about on their case backs for early years and also hallmark dating on British gold Watches as well as advertising claims.

That said, there are anomalies.

Rsearch is ongoing and conventional wisdom will likely change. (As it should).

Good luck and happy hunting!

Jeffrey Hess