How does everything look? Rolex 16750

[Smitten]

Hi guys

I'm looking in to buying this beautiful Rolex 16750.

Does everything look as it should - dial, hands, insert and case?

First digits of the SN is 75

Appreciate the help!

[TimeToGo]

Looks like a very nice watch!
Congrats.

[Smitten]

All in all it looks genuine and period correct?

[springer]

Originally Posted by Smitten

All in all it looks genuine and period correct?

What period would that insert be from?

[Smitten]

I believe it should be original to the watch. Anything wrong with it?

[Sky21]

Looks like a nice Mk 1 dial for the 16750 with a blue backed insert (although I'm kind of taking a guess on that part) which I think can be considered correct here. I believe the blue backed inserts started appearing somewhere in the 7 mil serial range. Hands appear to match the dial as far as I can tell from your photos. With a 75xxxxx serial it's probably a 1982 production so the matte dial is correct. The chamfers on the case seem to still be there a little bit, but it's hard to tell. Maybe some more in focus shots of the dial would help as well as photos of the bracelet clasp and in between the lugs. Good luck, hope this helps you.

[lee fowler]

Should be a Red back insert I believe.

[Smitten]

I haven't yet had the watch in my hands. The bracelet is a 78360 with 580 endlinks which I believe is correct for the watch. Clasp code should be G or H?

Thanks for the help! Seems like it's a watch worth pursuing.

[Sky21]

Yes that bracelet is correct and a G or H clasp code would be fine as they don't need to match the case serial exactly. G would generally be considered as 1982 and H as 1983.

[Sky21]

Originally Posted by lee fowler

Should be a Red back insert I believe.

Yes, I agree there definitely were still red backed inserts in this time frame. I was just trying to say that this one could also possibly be correct as Rolex had started putting the blue backed inserts on new watches as well. I could certainly be wrong here as I'm not sure anyone has pinned down a specific date for the blue backed first appearance yet.

[lee fowler]

Red back is correct up to around 1983, 82***** serial I believe.

[Sky21]

Originally Posted by lee fowler

Red back is correct up to around 1983, 82***** serial I believe.

Thanks Lee, always looking to learn, appreciate the info.

[lee fowler]

Maybe slightly higher as with all this you have an overlap.

[Sky21]

Originally Posted by lee fowler

Maybe slightly higher as with all this you have an overlap.

Ok, thanks, any idea regarding the overlap with the matte dials and the WG dials? How early for the WG and how late for the matte? Around 8.2-8.4 mil?

[lee fowler]

Matte to Gloss around 9******

[Sky21]

Originally Posted by lee fowler

Matte to Gloss around 9******

Ok great, thank you.

[springer]

Originally Posted by lee fowler

Matte to Gloss around 9******

The gloss 16750 dials started showing up in the 8.4 million range. Some maybe even earlier. Around 9 million is way, way out of range for matte dials.

[Sky21]

Originally Posted by springer

The gloss 16750 dials started showing up in the 8.4 million range. Some maybe even earlier. Around 9 million is way, way out of range for matte dials.

Thanks jP, do the dates for the blue backed inserts showing up make sense? Early 80's they can become standard issue from Rolex?

[strafer_kid]

Looks nice!

[springer]

Originally Posted by Sky21

Thanks jP, do the dates for the blue backed inserts showing up make sense? Early 80's they can become standard issue from Rolex?

The 7.5 million watch which is the subject of this thread should be a red back.

[Smitten]

So all in all everything looks genuine and can be bought with confidence?

[onthedial]

@Smitten
You can be confident that this particular watch is authentic; whether you can BUY with confidence is another matter as we don't know the asking price. If you're OK with it, go for it!
btw, it's very common for the handsets on these early 16750's to have been replaced. This one looks to be all original.
____________
Instagram: @onthedial