Can anyone comment on my 5.6 mil 1680, specifically the crystal and bezel insert?

[TimRolex]

Hi TRF!

I received this watch yesterday, and I have a couple questions.

First, does the date magnifier (cyclops) look a little "off" to you? It looks crooked to me, as though maybe the crystal just isn't alligned correctly.

Secondly, can anyone comment on the authenticity of the bezel insert from these photos? The pearl looks uncentered, and I figured if it were genuine Rolex, it would be perfectly centered. From what I have read, it appears to me a "Mk3" insert, would you agree? Is that correct for this vintage?

Third, from these photos, would you say I found a nice example?

[lhanddds]

I'm guessing the insert is fake. That pip is off center and the condition is too nice. Better experts will chime in soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Perpetual74]

Insert is ok and very nice... The cycolpe even is good but the plexi is only slightly turned...

Congrats.. Very nice watch

[TimRolex]

Thank you, gents, for your opinions.

On the insert, I've got one vote fake, one vote ok. Can anyone else chime in?

[Pharmlou]

It is a little hard to tell because none of the photos are from directly above the watch, but to echo your thoughts, the crystal is not aligned correctly ( the cyclops looks fine though). The insert looks okay but the lume pip is most probably after market. If you could get a watchmaker to pop out the insert, then you could tell for certain.

[springer]

Insert is genuine. The crystal would take a watchmaker a couple minutes to align and properly and do a pressure test. Personally, I wouldn't worry about the crystal alignment for more than a few seconds. No one would ever notice it unless they are walking around with magnifiers taped to their eyeballs.

[DarthBane]

It's a genuine insert. To be specific, some would refer to this as a "hooked 5" MKIII . The pip being of center is perfectly fine.

[DarthBane]

The crystal may not be off. It could be that the movement was not aligned correctly and the dial is skewed a bit to the left (counterclockwise).

Removing the caseback and readjusting the movement screws should be a 5 min fix.

[theflywrist]

Nice case for sure!
Insert looks okay to me. My 1680 is a 6.1M serial and looks the same. I have seen several inserts with the pearl not centered.
That doesn't look like a MK 2 dial to me though, which I think it should be.
Doesn't look like a MK 1 either.

I could be wrong. Experts will help chime in I hope.
I'm curious myself.
I wouldn't worry about the crystal personally!

[TimRolex]

Originally Posted by theflywrist

That doesn't look like a MK 2 dial to me though, which I think it should be.
Doesn't look like a MK 1 either.

Can anyone else chime in on the dial?

[springer]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

Can anyone else chime in on the dial?

I have no idea what the post by theflywrist meant when he said..."That doesn't look like a MK 2 dial to me though, which I think it should be." My question to him would be..."why should it be a Mark II, he didn't even give a serial number for the watch in his post which would help date the watch to a particular dial variation."

Additionally, there are more than two variations of 1680 white-lettered dials.

Regarding the dial on Timrolex's 1680, it appears to be a Mark I dial which would be the first variation of the white-lettered Submariner 1680 dials.

[droptopman]

Very nice example IMHO. Case looks great and so does the dial and hands. Beautiful MKI dial. Insert looks genuine to me and in excellent condition. Nice find. Excellent looking watch. Get that plexi sorted and enjoy

[Perpetual74]

The dial is a genuine Mark III.. About the white 1680 dials, in my opinion, there is no clear distinction between mark and serial, very often they overlap in the course of the whole production...
I consider the various marks a distinction of grafic rather than a precise time sequence of successive graphics overt time..
I confirm that this 1680 is good and nice

[TimRolex]

Thanks Springer and droptopman!

The serial begins with 56xxxxx

After reading this thread http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=192774 I believe it to be a Mk3 insert...am I wrong? The L in Rolex appears to be slightly left of center under the coronet on mine, and I think the Mk1 would be perfectly centered. I don't think it's a Mk2 either, because the 6's in the depth rating don't match.

5.6mil serial would date the watch to approx 1978. Is there one "correct" dial variety for that serial number range?

[springer]

Here are the dial variations. Look at the third dial, which is a Mark III. Notice how the C in CERTIFIED is directly below the H in CHRONOMETER. I don't see your letters aligning the same as depicted in the photo below.

A 1978 production could be Mark II or III, possibly even Mark I. I don't believe anyone can say for sure.

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by springer

I have no idea what the post by theflywrist meant when he said..."That doesn't look like a MK 2 dial to me though, which I think it should be." My question to him would be..."why should it be a Mark II, he didn't even give a serial number for the watch in his post which would help date the watch to a particular dial variation."

Additionally, there are more than two variations of 1680 white-lettered dials.

Regarding the dial on Timrolex's 1680, it appears to be a Mark I dial which would be the first variation of the white-lettered Submariner 1680 dials.

The serial number is on the title of the thread.
It just didnt look like a MK 1 or 2 to me, that is why I said.
I was trying to help so we could figure out what variant it was. I compared it to my MK 2 which is around the same serial, and saw that it didnt look like it, and got a little curious.
The "=" is also not directly under the A like in the MK 3. I checked all three variants before I posted.

But as "Perpetual74" said, there is not real clear distinction on the 1680 variants with serial numbers.

OP. My apologies if I made it sound as though it was not a genuine dial. Glad experts have helped chime in on it!

[Frogman4me]

Insert is a MKIII which is correct for this era and the crystal is just slightly misaligned which is an easy fix.

[nycpassat]

it is clearly a MK1 dial

[TimRolex]

Originally Posted by nycpassat

it is clearly a MK1 dial

Even though the L is not centered under the coronet?

[springer]

Originally Posted by TimRolex

Even though the L is not centered under the coronet?

It is clearly not a Mark I...sorry NYC but I disagree. (I'll have to retract my previous observation that it appears to be a MARK I after spending more time studying the dial.)

There are many letters that do not align the same on the MARK I dial photo and the TIMROLEX'S 1680 dial photos shown below if his dial is in fact a MARK I. To be honest I 'm not sure what it is. Nothing lines up as it does with the known dials and it doesn't look aftermarket but maybe it is?

[NKflyer]

Dial is an Mk3. I remember reading somewhere that some of the montage photos like in post #15 are flawed and therefore not always a good reference.

Check out this post:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost....5&postcount=63

[springer]

Here is the complete 1680 thread below. One post in the thread, post #7 on page 2, by Marcello, is a comment regarding a Lemrich dial that appears to be the same as that on the TIMROLEX 1680. He calls this dial, or believes it might be, an early service dial. If this would be the case, I can see why there is some confusion on this dial - at least for me.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...ognize+mk1+mk3

[Perpetual74]

In my opinion I confirm taht the dial is the Mark III Lemrich, not service and is nice and correct

for 1680 there is no clear temporal classification of the dial that came from different producers and which are overlapped in time

[stillsane]

Originally Posted by Perpetual74

In my opinion I confirm taht the dial is the Mark III Lemrich, not service and is nice and correct

for 1680 there is no clear temporal classification of the dial that came from different producers and which are overlapped in time

I have a 5.4 million which was handed down to me by my father. Not a service dial. MY father never had anything replaced unless it affected the function of the watch. The insert is a service. I have the orginal.

[TimRolex]

Guys, thank you for all your work on this. The more I read, the more I am convinced mine is a Mk3 dial with Mk3 insert.

Do insert variations correlate at all to the dial variations?