Rolex red sub 1680

[Tbrolex]

I wanted to get opinions on this rolex 1680 for authenticity. I have looked around a few websites including Mark Lermans site and it seems authentic and date appropriate but wanted some experts opinions.

2.3 serial number. Seems to be a Mark IV dial with at least date approp fat font bezel.

Looking around at different sites seems like the date wheels are a little variable. This one has an open 26.

Appreciate your time and comments.

[Gina Marie]

nice bezel, pearl looks off. Is there a divot through the 12 oclock plot? What is the serial. I have a 2.38 that is a mark 4, as do others. I think a later 2.3x is ok for a mark 4 imho.

[Tbrolex]

Yes to both. The pearl was replaced and there is a slight divot through the 12 o'clock plot.

Seems like tritium pearls have gotten tough to find - any places to check that they occasionally become available?

The serial is 2.38.

[springer]

I would think 2.3 million is well within the range for a meters first dial but anything is possible since there is nothing in "stone" for cut-offs regarding the serial number range for each dial.

[btinl]

Is the caseback stamped with a date?

[MoonWave]

For your reference, this watch was listed on eBay recently:

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/312020457287

If it did in fact change hands, it may be worth asking why the buyer is moving it on so quickly.

[swish77]

That scratch on the 12 o'clock marker would be a deal-breaker for me. Yes, it would (should) probably be cheaper than other red 1680s because of it, but that's a big scratch in such a prominent spot. It would bug me every time I looked at the dial, so the price would be irrelevant. The eBay factor would also be a big question.

Agree with Springer above on the question of meters-first versus feet-first dials. It's very close. I've seen plenty of 2.3 million serial Subs that are meters-first, but also some 2.4 million that are feet-first. I'd definitely want to research that question further if I was interested in this watch.