When the Submariner Date 1680 was introduced?

[mag]

Hello,

i have a few original catalogues. In the edition from 10/1967 (german)
there is only the Submariner 5513 and the Submariner 1680 in
18K yellow gold. No Stainless Steel version.

Greetings from Germany
MaG

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by mag

Hello,

i have a few original catalogues. In the edition from 10/1967 (german)
there is only the Submariner 5513 and the Submariner 1680 in
18K yellow gold. No Stainless Steel version.

Greetings from Germany
MaG

Now we're getting somewhere. This falls in line with Rolex's new intro watch cycle. Precious metal first then stainless. So it's possible the 1680 wasn't available in stainless steel until 1969.
That's quite a significant detail.

[Styles Bitchley]

Originally Posted by mag

Hello,



i have a few original catalogues. In the edition from 10/1967 (german)

there is only the Submariner 5513 and the Submariner 1680 in

18K yellow gold. No Stainless Steel version.



Greetings from Germany

MaG

That’s super interesting! Thanks Mag.

Also interesting to see the 11:00 lug on that 5513! I don’t want to digress from the subject at hand but it looks way over polished. Did some come from the factory like this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Styles Bitchley

That’s super interesting! Thanks Mag.

Also interesting to see the 11:00 lug on that 5513! I don’t want to digress from the subject at hand but it looks way over polished. Did some come from the factory like this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Angle of the bend in the page.

[mag]

but, now i read the text again :-(

german:

> hat ein amtlich geprüftes Chronometerwerk mit Datum und ist
> sowohl in Stahl als auch in 18 Kt. Geldgold erhältlich.

english:

a official certified chronometer with date and is available
in steel and also in 18K yellow gold.

the red 1680 is not pictured and maybe there was also a "shortage"
and waiting list around 1967/1968/1969 for stainless steel
sports-models, i dont know ...


Greetings from Germany
MaG

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by mag

but, now i read the text again :-(

german:

> hat ein amtlich geprüftes Chronometerwerk mit Datum und ist
> sowohl in Stahl als auch in 18 Kt. Geldgold erhältlich.

english:

a official certified chronometer with date and is available
in steel and also in 18K yellow gold.

the red 1680 is not pictured and maybe there was also a "shortage"
and waiting list around 1967/1968/1969 for stainless steel
sports-models, i dont know ...


Greetings from Germany
MaG

Thanks for sharing Markus

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Dowling & Hess say 1965 (The Best of Time: Rolex Wristwatches, p.258), and Mondani says 1967, and 1969 for the 18k 1680/8 (The Rolex Submariner Story, p.89). Skeet & Urul say 1966 (Vintage Rolex Sport Models, p.42)

That's incredible. Thanks Adam. Goes to show that people really have no clue when the most popular dive watch from the most recognized watch brand in the world was officially released. I hope we can find some answer on this thread.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by mag

but, now i read the text again :-(

german:

> hat ein amtlich geprüftes Chronometerwerk mit Datum und ist
> sowohl in Stahl als auch in 18 Kt. Geldgold erhältlich.

english:

a official certified chronometer with date and is available
in steel and also in 18K yellow gold.

the red 1680 is not pictured and maybe there was also a "shortage"
and waiting list around 1967/1968/1969 for stainless steel
sports-models, i dont know ...


Greetings from Germany
MaG

Well that adds to the mystery then. Where are the watches, aliens took them all??
Now I'm with Flavio and very shocked that this most famous dive watch is lost in ambiguity. We know more about the pyramids than when arguably the most famous dive watch came out. Submariner Date, the watch without a DOB, lols.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Well that adds to the mystery then. Where are the watches, aliens took them all??
Now I'm with Flavio and very shocked that this most famous dive watch is lost in ambiguity. We know more about the pyramids than when arguably the most famous dive watch came out. Submariner Date, the watch without a DOB, lols.

Exactly Rashid. I've always noticed the uncertainty when the topic was discussed in random threads, and I thought is was time to find a definitive answer so I started this one. As far as I can see, and considering what Adam posted (three different release years on three different prestigious books) this is indeed a mystery that needs to be solved. I'm glad I started this thread.

[FTX I]

ps. apologies for the poor grammar on the thread title. it was too late to edit when I noticed. english is not my first language.

[Styles Bitchley]

Here’s a scan of a 1967 catalogue linked to from a post on VRF. No 1680 listed.

http://static.squarespace.com/static...atalog1967.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seattleal]

Originally Posted by Styles Bitchley

That’s super interesting! Thanks Mag.

Also interesting to see the 11:00 lug on that 5513! I don’t want to digress from the subject at hand but it looks way over polished. Did some come from the factory like this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Early on the subs were hand finished at the factory and often had asymmetrical lugs and/or crown guards (especially early pointed CG). Here is a pic of a 5513 in a Rolex catalog which clearly shows this for lugs. Also attached is a pic of the CG on my chapter ring '61 5513, which some will argue is over-polishing, except if you research pics of early 60's 5512's you will see the upper CG smaller than lower far to often to be over-polishing. This is how they came from Rolex.

[Haywood_Milton]

“Three prestigious books?”

This is all kinds of wrong.

Come on, let’s see examples of the earliest case numbers, as that may provide primary evidence in contrast to recycled and unsupported claims.

With all the resources of membership and the internet, we still seem to be at 2,1m for the red 1680, don’t we?

As for the 18ct gold 1680/8, the German booklet is interesting if the date code is correct. However, booklets are commonly printed months before use and it might support the introduction of the gold version alone in early 1968.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

“Three prestigious books?”

This is all kinds of wrong.

What book would you suggest instead, sir?

I'm glad you're posting on this thread and the evidence you bring is very strong. However, I'm looking for official information and If you don't agree with the adjective I've used for the books (authors) that Adam quoted, please feel free to post what in your view is a more reliable source. Thank you.

[Haywood_Milton]

I would suggest not using any books to try to “prove” such an argument and I have already stated twice what I consider to be the definitive way to test how early these watches were manufactured.

My method is only defective for those with an imperfect grasp of case number chronology.

I have my own rather large database of case numbers and dates (about 250 pages of printed A4) which support any comments I make about dating case numbers.

Quoting books and internet content in a discussion like this is pointless.

Let’s have facts. Find the lowest case number on any correct example, then properly date that number.

[FTX I]

Understood. Your evidence is indisputable but is still evidence, and it may be used to form a theory or hypothesis. However, I'm looking for proof that shows the theory to be a fact.

It's the most popular dive watch in the world, so I know I'm repeating myself here, but I'd like to have official information.

[SOG DIVER]

Absent any defining official Rolex commentary, and supporting serial number range,
we have no real evidence.
A respectful letter to Geneva might be in order to confirm the year and possibly the month. My 1680 red Submariner was made in 1969. As the original owner, perhaps they might grant my request to date the first issue of this 1680 complication. Elementary only when there is physical evidence or a confession, or preferably both. Just like in a good criminal investigation.

[seattleal]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Understood. Your evidence is indisputable but is still evidence, and it may be used to form a theory or hypothesis. However, I'm looking for proof that shows the theory to be a fact.

It's the most popular dive watch in the world, so I know I'm repeating myself here, but I'd like to have official information.

Which is something you will likely never have, as Rolex is notoriously closed mouth so there is no 'official information'; they just don't release it. They do not release data of the type you are seeking, thus the only information is anecdotal. The best of that has been compiled by people like Haywood, who have been collecting information for years and have compiled a large sample size. If there was a definitive answer from Rolex you would not have estimates from various 'authoritative' sources that range from1965-1968. By the way Mondani, in his book 'Steel Rolex' says 1967; just another informed guess.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by seattleal

Which is something you will likely never have, as Rolex is notoriously closed mouth so there is no 'official information'; they just don't release it. They do not release data of the type you are seeking, thus the only information is anecdotal. The best of that has been compiled by people like Haywood, who have been collecting information for years and have compiled a large sample size. If there was a definitive answer from Rolex you would not have estimates from various 'authoritative' sources that range from1965-1968. By the way Mondani, in his book 'Steel Rolex' says 1967; just another informed guess.

I get it Al. I'm glad mr. Milton chimed in and I respect his opinion, just to be clear. But not too long ago I remember Rolex website saying 1953 for the Sub, 1954 for the Gmt, I don't remember the Explorer but the year was there etc. Not the case with the Sub Date. I's not possible that we don't know exacly what year they released the 1680.

[schaumburgla]

Woodstock!

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

I would suggest not using any books to try to “prove” such an argument and I have already stated twice what I consider to be the definitive way to test how early these watches were manufactured.

Oh I get it now. Just a communication problem and I think we're in agreement. The three books had three different years for the release of the 1680, so you're right when you say we shouldn't use books as proof, because in this case at least two of them are wrong, if not all of them, so it just proves we're still in the dark. I used them as example, not proof. I still can't believe we don't have a single catalogue or a Basel press release, a magazine ad, or anything that we could use as official information regarding this model.

[Styles Bitchley]

Possible there was an earlier release in Europe? This may account for different years if people are talking about different markets...just throwing it out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by seattleal

Early on the subs were hand finished at the factory and often had asymmetrical lugs and/or crown guards (especially early pointed CG). Here is a pic of a 5513 in a Rolex catalog which clearly shows this for lugs. Also attached is a pic of the CG on my chapter ring '61 5513, which some will argue is over-polishing, except if you research pics of early 60's 5512's you will see the upper CG smaller than lower far to often to be over-polishing. This is how they came from Rolex.

Oh that is mind blowing. True definition of handmade, I actually find a watch like this to be incredibly valuable(to me) because it is from a time when everything was analog and probably done by eye balling the case. Even though the tech might of simply been drunk that day, I like this aspect. Obviously today people would want to speak to the manager and demand their money back and their feet washed and kissed.....and this is why vintage watches are so unique, they survived in spite of it all.

Originally Posted by FTX I

What book would you suggest instead, sir?

I'm glad you're posting on this thread and the evidence you bring is very strong. However, I'm looking for official information and If you don't agree with the adjective I've used for the books (authors) that Adam quoted, please feel free to post what in your view is a more reliable source. Thank you.

The evidence is the lack of evidence. This is what I have been saying all along. There are no watches, none. Do you think true hardcore collectors such as Mr Milton or M. Wood and all our other members with specifically large "mind blowing" collections of JUST the Submariner....
and not one of them or the internet or even in those "books" have provided one, a couple at least...authentic watches with a case number from before 1969. The Submariner Date 1680 is one of the most researched Rolex watches on this planet...and thus far the earliest example starts with a serial number beginning in 2.xxx.xxx.

That for me is the evidence. As far as I'm concerned, up to this point, the Submariner Date first saw light in 1969, and that is in fact what Rolex says in their own Submariner magazine....what else can you want.
A youtube video from Basel in the 60s announcing the Submariner Date 1680...
..not gonna happen.

Best we could do is mount a research campaign self funded to go visit the Basel archives company and sift through their dusty shelves for the years 1965-1969, and then visit the libraries in Geneva and sift through their halls and sees what comes out.....
I'll save you thousands of dollars and sleepless nights, you'll find crap.
Because in the 1960s no one was obsessed with objects like we are today.
That's why baseball cards, toys, and memorabilia from that era is worth so much. People just lived and bought stuff to use, a dive watch was literally A DIVE WATCH!...hence the moniker tool watch.

Those books may be prestigious but throwing out all those dates is just big foot and nessy sightings...because someone else said it, but still no big foot.
Don't know about you but I'm putting back my pitch fork and torch and going home before my wife beats my ass for talking to strangers online so much....

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

The evidence is the lack of evidence. This is what I have been saying all along. There are no watches, none. Do you think true hardcore collectors such as Mr Milton or M. Wood and all our other members with specifically large "mind blowing" collections of JUST the Submariner....
and not one of them or the internet or even in those "books" have provided one, a couple at least...authentic watches with a case number from before 1969. The Submariner Date 1680 is one of the most researched Rolex watches on this planet...and thus far the earliest example starts with a serial number beginning in 2.xxx.xxx.

That for me is the evidence. As far as I'm concerned, up to this point, the Submariner Date first saw light in 1969, and that is in fact what Rolex says in their own Submariner magazine....what else can you want.
A youtube video from Basel in the 60s announcing the Submariner Date 1680...
..not gonna happen.

Best we could do is mount a research campaign self funded to go visit the Basel archives company and sift through their dusty shelves for the years 1965-1969, and then visit the libraries in Geneva and sift through their halls and sees what comes out.....
I'll save you thousands of dollars and sleepless nights, you'll find crap.
Because in the 1960s no one was obsessed with objects like we are today.
That's why baseball cards, toys, and memorabilia from that era is worth so much. People just lived and bought stuff to use, a dive watch was literally A DIVE WATCH!...hence the moniker tool watch.

Those books may be prestigious but throwing out all those dates is just big foot and nessy sightings...because someone else said it, but still no big foot.
Don't know about you but I'm putting back my pitch fork and torch and going home before my wife beats my ass for talking to strangers online so much....

Probably true, no question. This is not a crusade, Rashid. Just my curiosity on why the lack of proof of the release of this specific reference. Amazes me that the most recognized dive watch from the most famous watch company needs a collection of evidence to prove the birth year, and it did not happen a century ago. As I said on my previous post to Al, not that long ago we could read Rolex website saying Sub 1953, GMT 1954, Exp xx, people know everything about every model, but for the Sub Date we must follow leads like a Dan Brown's novel.

[Haywood_Milton]

Lots of posts saying "I was thinking..." or "I support..." or "I read..."

We must surely reach all conclusions with evidence, so if anyone wishes to take a position may I suggest that they should at least support it with explicit reasons?

[AndreaC]

1680... 1969!


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[Haywood_Milton]

......or perhaps we can all just shout out numbers and reach an answer that way.

I'm out.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

......or perhaps we can all just shout out numbers and reach an answer that way.

I'm out.

Well I would like to thank you for taking the time to share from your knowledge with us, it adds legitimacy to crucial details.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Well I would like to thank you for taking the time to share from your knowledge with us, it adds legitimacy to crucial details.

+1. Thank you.

[seattleal]

I've been debating whether to post the following, but here it is -

In the fall of 1970 I asked my aunt, who was traveling to Hong Kong, to buy me a date submariner, which I had recently learned existed. Not realizing what they would become, I sold it in 1986, but here is the relevant point. The watch was a feet first red sub. From pictures I still have, I believe it was a Mark V dial. If the 1680 was only introduced in 1969, and the Mark I-IV dials were issued chronologically, did Rolex really sell enough watches in one year to get all the way to Mark V by the fall of 1970? And if not, then what does that imply about the year of introduction?