Is this appropriate patina, or a damaged dial

[Cosmokramer]

Hi folks, in my quest to find a vintage Submariner (either Rolex or Tudor) I have found this 16800 that I'm considering purchasing.
I'm wondering if this dial is nice patina or actual damage. Maybe moisture?

[Dan S]

It is definitely damage to the lacquer. Only you can decide if it's "nice," but it will certainly affect the value, IMO. Most people will probably not like it very much, because it's blotchy and not totally even, but it's really going to be a matter of personal taste, and price.

I like the color of the lume.

[alwayshere]

Agree with Dan and the hands will likely get worse too.

I still don't know what typically causes those "corroded" marks? moisture I guess?

[Cosmokramer]

Originally Posted by Dan S

It is definitely damage to the lacquer. Only you can decide if it's "nice," but it will certainly affect the value, IMO. Most people will probably not like it very much, because it's blotchy and not totally even, but it's really going to be a matter of personal taste, and price.

I like the color of the lume.

I see. So the fact that it's not even throughout the dial is the reason this type of patina that is not generally desirable?
Price is currently $7500 and has been on the market for 4 months in a local forum.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Cosmokramer

I see. So the fact that it's not even throughout the dial is the reason this type of patina that is not generally desirable?
Price is currently $7500 and has been on the market for 4 months in a local forum.

I hesitate to generalize because this is such a personal thing. Some people can't tolerate any type of damage to the dial. But amongst people that can tolerate some patina/damage, I think that evenly spread or symmetrical damage is more often appreciated. Uneven damage, scratches, prominent marks/spots, blotches, stains, etc., are generally found to be less attractive.

Let's see what other people say, but you should really be prepared to follow your own feelings, don't base your decision on the opinions of others. But, yes, the damage on that dial is making the watch hard to sell. There could be other issues as well, but your photos don't show the whole watch.

[Cosmokramer]

Originally Posted by Dan S

I hesitate to generalize because this is such a personal thing. Some people can't tolerate any type of damage to the dial. But amongst people that can tolerate some patina/damage, I think that evenly spread or symmetrical damage is more often appreciated. Uneven damage, scratches, prominent marks/spots, blotches, stains, etc., are generally found to be less attractive.

Let's see what other people say, but you should really be prepared to follow your own feelings, don't base your decision on the opinions of others. But, yes, the damage on that dial is making the watch hard to sell. There could be other issues as well, but your photos don't show the whole watch.

There are 12 pics in the ad , I just had to crop these two pics heavily to upload them here. In my limited experience the case looks like it was worn and enjoyed but still ok. I don't mind scratches on the case as that tells a story of a tool watch that's 39 yrs old..

[TuRo]

My ten cents and for a devils advocate....

Lacquer did this on some earliest 16800 gloss and 16760 I have seen - 5513 and 16750 more likely to spider

You only really see if at some angles.

It might get worse but I suspect not to affect of flaking.

Polishing - boring and you have the right attitude imho.

Tarnishing to hands is not too bad and have a good trit' lume nice matching shade.

The sapphire is scratched on right hand edge side but no biggy.

There are 3 main good points

1) it's very cheap £6000-6500 is £2-3k under retail (more than a gloss secondhand dial price btw).

2) HR markers are lovely shade.

3) gold bezel pip nice as per found on many 16800 pre 8.5 million matte dial versions btw.

Would I buy it for £6k if in UK - probably....if 93150, e/l's , cal, caseback are good, but I'm a mercenary value collector....so shouldn't sway your decision - Rgds P

[Andad]

This package does nothing for me - I would pass.

[TuRo]

Ps I just saw you comment '39 year old watch' - that would/might make it 84 or pre 8.5 million pls confirm ? - if so, it would have been a matte dial and this is therefore a service dial. If so you could source a matte dial.
I just sold a loose matte 16800 dial to Scott at VintageX for £1300, they aren't an arm and a leg.

[joli160]

In my eyes it’s ugly, rather spent more for a good dial.
Guess i am not the only one since it is sitting for a long time without anybody buying it

[Arnozerosix]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Would I buy it for £6k if in UK - probably....if 93150, e/l's , cal, caseback are good, but I'm a mercenary value collector....so shouldn't sway your decision - Rgds P

Although 6k is not super expensive it deserve a nice service...
Not really sure, but the crystal looks damaged/scratched as well between 2 and 4 o'clock

[charlitos]

No for me.

[tekno]

Get a matte 16800 or 168000 thank me later

I think that’s the model


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Cosmokramer]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Ps I just saw you comment '39 year old watch' - that would/might make it 84 or pre 8.5 million pls confirm ? - if so, it would have been a matte dial and this is therefore a service dial. If so you could source a matte dial.
I just sold a loose matte 16800 dial to Scott at VintageX for £1300, they aren't an arm and a leg.

That's correct, 1984 and and 8.5 million serial number.
I was reading later versions of this model tranistioned to gloss dial with the hour marker rings. Would an '84 be in that time frame?

[Cosmokramer]

Originally Posted by TuRo

My ten cents and for a devils advocate....

Lacquer did this on some earliest 16800 gloss and 16760 I have seen - 5513 and 16750 more likely to spider

You only really see if at some angles.

It might get worse but I suspect not to affect of flaking.

Polishing - boring and you have the right attitude imho.

Tarnishing to hands is not too bad and have a good trit' lume nice matching shade.

The sapphire is scratched on right hand edge side but no biggy.

There are 3 main good points

1) it's very cheap £6000-6500 is £2-3k under retail (more than a gloss secondhand dial price btw).

2) HR markers are lovely shade.

3) gold bezel pip nice as per found on many 16800 pre 8.5 million matte dial versions btw.

Would I buy it for £6k if in UK - probably....if 93150, e/l's , cal, caseback are good, but I'm a mercenary value collector....so shouldn't sway your decision - Rgds P

If I were to purchase this piece the first thing I would do is get a new crystal without a cyclops. I can't stand them.

[Dom9]

Saw the first pic and thought "what's wrong with that?"... then I saw the second... oh!

I love a bit of patina but, yeah, that's a bit blotchy and uneven. Lots to like there though, from the limited pics, e.g. insert.

I'd think along the lines of TuRo... there looks to be value there, especially if you can knock a little more off.

Pick up a matte dial and maybe a NOS crystal and you'd still have your parts (dial, crystal) to sell on to offset, especially if the dial is a service dial anyway, so not original/no added value to keeping with the watch.

Would make a nice day-to-day 16800, I'd be only too happy to wear.

[ExplorerI]

Not for me I’d wait for a better example

[Cosmokramer]

Pics of the case.
Scratches on a vintage tool watch don't bother me.
Can't tell if it's been polished recently. I don't expect a watch
of this age to be perfect and I'd assume it was polished
at some point many years ago. If it was polished by the original owner 25 yrs ago I'd have no issues with that. Polished just a couple years ago is different.

[swish77]

Big pass for me with that dial. I don't understand the mentality of making excuses for ugly dials by saying it's OK because it's not too expensive or that it's a cool vintage look. There's a reason it's priced that low and no one's bought it after four months on the market. Patina is nice and the case looks OK, but that dial.

OP, I'd suggest increasing your budget and getting a nicer version. They're out there. Or, since you don't like a cyclops, perhaps consider a 16660 SD if you're looking for an '80s Rolex dive watch, or even an early 16600.

Originally Posted by TuRo

Ps I just saw you comment '39 year old watch' - that would/might make it 84 or pre 8.5 million pls confirm ? - if so, it would have been a matte dial and this is therefore a service dial.

This is right at the cross-over. I always thought the glossy dials started right around 1984-5, no?

[77T]

Not a fan of that type of degraded dial.

If you saw this on the walls of your home, you wouldn’t think “patina”…




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by Cosmokramer

That's correct, 1984 and and 8.5 million serial number.
I was reading later versions of this model tranistioned to gloss dial with the hour marker rings. Would an '84 be in that time frame?

If low 8.5s could have been matte, but I'm more inclined to say gloss was original to watch given patina. You could fit a matte still and it would pass most people's muster....though most are up to 8.495 million I've seen/had.

[Cosmokramer]

So with all the info provided, is it all but certain this is damage, and not simply age related?

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by Cosmokramer

So with all the info provided, is it all but certain this is damage, and not simply age related?

My view is that is poor Rolex Quality Standards indicative of the early gloss dials and like the 5513/16750 which spidered. The lume plots and handset don't look particularly water damaged. Could be wrong though.

[Dan S]

Case looks good to me. No way to tell what caused the dial damage but the cause doesn’t really matter. It is what it is … as they say.

[swaini3]

Price is not bad IMO. Not a fan of the dial. If everything else matches and is correct, I would consider buying it and waiting for a decent dial to be available if I can bear the headache, patience etc. On the other hand, generally it's not hard to find good examples of this ref with no dial issues.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by TuRo

My view is that is poor Rolex Quality Standards indicative of the early gloss dials and like the 5513/16750 which spidered. The lume plots and handset don't look particularly water damaged. Could be wrong though.

Yes, many of these early gloss dials didn't age well, but what's weird is that you can also find them in perfect condition. I wonder if these dials were simply more vulnerable to mistreatment and the elements, but that watches that were well maintained and/or kept away from moisture/water, survived well.

Here's my 9.3 million 168000. The dial is squeaky clean, with a slight but even matte appearance at certain angles.

[Cosmokramer]

If this was send in for service to Rolex, would they replace the dial and handset?

[Dan S]

Are you asking if they would require replacement or if they would give you the option? My guess is that they would require dial replacement but you would certainly have the option to do it.

[Cosmokramer]

Thank you to all who replied to this thread. Learned a lot and that's why I'm here. Very helpful Information as I continue my quest for a vintage Rolex/Tudor Submariner.

[Cosmokramer]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Are you asking if they would require replacement or if they would give you the option? My guess is that they would require dial replacement but you would certainly have the option to do it.

This one is still on my mine considering the price. If sent in for service would the dial replacement be tritium, or current luminous material?