ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

UJSW8NC · 22 April 2011, 08:11 AM

Does anyone know how to find out the exact year a 1680 "Red" submariner was built? I have found conflicting information and Rolex can't help. The serial number is a 23#####. I am figuring the date should be 1969? Any help is appreciated.

lhanddds · 22 April 2011, 08:16 AM

around 68 -69 looks about right

Tools · 22 April 2011, 08:30 AM

You're in luck..

During that time they stamped the inside of the case-back with the year and quarter of manufacture... such as II68 for the second quarter..

look inside ..........

HL65 · 22 April 2011, 08:45 AM

My 69 Red is 229xxxx and yes case back stamped so oper her up.

UJSW8NC · 22 April 2011, 08:58 AM

Thanks for insight guys :)

Racer X · 22 April 2011, 09:27 AM

Nearly certain it's '69.

UJSW8NC · 22 April 2011, 09:52 AM

So I found this one that states it is a 1971 with serial number 3788557.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1968-Rolex-1680-...item4aaa63ec9f

And then I found this auction states it is a 1968 with serial number 22xxxxx.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1968-Rolex-1680-...item4aaa63ec9f

What is confusing is this seller states the following:

It has original 200m - 660ft dial that is unique to these late 60s examples. (They changed to 660ft-200m from 1971...)

Well mine says 660ft-200m which would state it is newer than 1969 and at least a 1971 or newer.

Any thoughts?

fusionstorm · 23 April 2011, 03:10 AM

Your dial was changed at some point.

HL65 · 23 April 2011, 05:40 AM

Exactly--changed dial.

TimeToGo · 23 April 2011, 05:48 AM

First of all, WELCOME TO THE FORUM!

There was a very interesting discussion on VRF regarding this topic. I copied the link below. We need to keep an open mind in these discussions....

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...rly+RIDICULOUS...

HL65 · 23 April 2011, 05:59 AM

I remember this post as well as Kristians very nice looking watch. At the end of the day though--a 2.3 should be a meters first sub. With that said is it 100% ruled out that there can't be any feet first subs in that range--no I can't certainly rule that out. Is a watch in that range that is a feet first watch a watch with a story--yes. Do most people like story watches--no. Is it a nice watch that he can enjoy--Sure--why not. Will it be hard to sell if he chose to do so--yes as it is a story watch. So--for me--I avoid story watches. At the end of the day -one thing is clear--there is a lot of info out there for us and a lot to learn when it comes to Rolex. With that said--Enjoy your watch and most certainly welcome to TRF!!!

Ezza8 · 23 April 2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UJSW8NC

So I found this one that states it is a 1971 with serial number 3788557.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1968-Rolex-1680-...item4aaa63ec9f

And then I found this auction states it is a 1968 with serial number 22xxxxx.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1968-Rolex-1680-...item4aaa63ec9f

What is confusing is this seller states the following:

It has original 200m - 660ft dial that is unique to these late 60s examples. (They changed to 660ft-200m from 1971...)

Well mine says 660ft-200m which would state it is newer than 1969 and at least a 1971 or newer.

Any thoughts?

Welcome to the forum!

Rolex serial numbers are not an exact science, and its often said that with Rolex, one can never be 100% certain. Guidelines are however very useful, read Mark Lerman's excellent post on Red Subs:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=145962

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelerFan1965

I remember this post as well as Kristians very nice looking watch. At the end of the day though--a 2.3 should be a meters first sub. With that said is it 100% ruled out that there can't be any feet first subs in that range--no I can't certainly rule that out. Is a watch in that range that is a feet first watch a watch with a story--yes. Do most people like story watches--no. Is it a nice watch that he can enjoy--Sure--why not. Will it be hard to sell if he chose to do so--yes as it is a story watch. So--for me--I avoid story watches. At the end of the day -one thing is clear--there is a lot of info out there for us and a lot to learn when it comes to Rolex. With that said--Enjoy your watch and most certainly welcome to TRF!!!

Story watch indeed! From my recollection, the watch was bought by Kristian's friend. The watch in the original post looked super sharp, but on closer inspection, appears to have had issues with the 1 o'clock lug and the corresponding crown guard. The lug is significantly shortened (when compared with the other side) and the upper crown guard is clearly thinner. With a restored case, one must also wonder about the originality of that feet first dial in a 2.29mill case.

union special · 26 April 2011, 07:06 AM

I had read somewhere online that during certain years some models were released with both dial versions at the same time. (meters first / feet first) and that the watch could have either depending on the region of the world it was originally shipped to - metric (meters) first or english (ft) first depending on the region.....Any merit to this claim?

22 April 2011, 08:11 AM	#1
UJSW8NC "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Posts: 4	1680 red submariner question Does anyone know how to find out the exact year a 1680 "Red" submariner was built? I have found conflicting information and Rolex can't help. The serial number is a 23#####. I am figuring the date should be 1969? Any help is appreciated.

22 April 2011, 08:30 AM	#3
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,129	You're in luck.. During that time they stamped the inside of the case-back with the year and quarter of manufacture... such as II68 for the second quarter.. look inside .......... __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

22 April 2011, 08:45 AM	#4
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,474	My 69 Red is 229xxxx and yes case back stamped so oper her up. __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

22 April 2011, 09:52 AM	#7
UJSW8NC "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Posts: 4	I have been looking around So I found this one that states it is a 1971 with serial number 3788557. http://cgi.ebay.com/1968-Rolex-1680-...item4aaa63ec9f And then I found this auction states it is a 1968 with serial number 22xxxxx. http://cgi.ebay.com/1968-Rolex-1680-...item4aaa63ec9f What is confusing is this seller states the following: It has original 200m - 660ft dial that is unique to these late 60s examples. (They changed to 660ft-200m from 1971...) Well mine says 660ft-200m which would state it is newer than 1969 and at least a 1971 or newer. Any thoughts?

23 April 2011, 03:10 AM	#8
fusionstorm "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Piedmont, CA Watch: various vintage Posts: 2,272	Your dial was changed at some point. __________________ 1680 MK II 2.2M (my daily); 1655 MK IV 8.1M (my 1st vintage); 16660 x 4 - 8.0M spider & matte 7.4M, 8.0M, 8.0M; 16610LV F MK I/MK I; 116528 Z; 14060 M COSC; Tudor 75090 Gone.....never forgotten: 14000 F, 14060 V COSC, PAM 048, 16623 F, 1680 MK V 3.1M, 16800 matte 8.3M & 1655 MK IV 7.4M

22 April 2011, 08:16 AM	#2
lhanddds Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: USA Watch: of course Posts: 8,429	around 68 -69 looks about right

22 April 2011, 08:58 AM	#5
UJSW8NC "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Posts: 4	Thanks for insight guys :)

22 April 2011, 09:27 AM	#6
Racer X "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: Dave Location: Unknown Posts: 999	Nearly certain it's '69.

23 April 2011, 05:40 AM	#9
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,474	Exactly--changed dial. __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

23 April 2011, 05:48 AM	#10
TimeToGo 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: North Florida Posts: 16,617	First of all, WELCOME TO THE FORUM! There was a very interesting discussion on VRF regarding this topic. I copied the link below. We need to keep an open mind in these discussions.... http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...rly+RIDICULOUS...

23 April 2011, 05:59 AM	#11
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,474	I remember this post as well as Kristians very nice looking watch. At the end of the day though--a 2.3 should be a meters first sub. With that said is it 100% ruled out that there can't be any feet first subs in that range--no I can't certainly rule that out. Is a watch in that range that is a feet first watch a watch with a story--yes. Do most people like story watches--no. Is it a nice watch that he can enjoy--Sure--why not. Will it be hard to sell if he chose to do so--yes as it is a story watch. So--for me--I avoid story watches. At the end of the day -one thing is clear--there is a lot of info out there for us and a lot to learn when it comes to Rolex. With that said--Enjoy your watch and most certainly welcome to TRF!!! __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

26 April 2011, 07:06 AM	#13
union special "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Brooklyn Watch: 1680 RED/5513 GILT Posts: 58	feet first /meters first depends on region??? I had read somewhere online that during certain years some models were released with both dial versions at the same time. (meters first / feet first) and that the watch could have either depending on the region of the world it was originally shipped to - metric (meters) first or english (ft) first depending on the region.....Any merit to this claim?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)