AD says Submariner Ref 168000 “triple zero” doesn’t EXIST!?

[jasons_supra]

My grandfather hasn’t been able to wear his submariner for a while due to the bracelet being broken, so I picked it up from his house the other day to get it fixed/replaced for him. After taking off the bracelet I noticed the reference 168000 on the case at the 12:00 position. After doing some researched I learned that this is apparently quite a rare reference and was a transitional model that was made for less than a year. So this was pretty exciting. It doesn’t seem to carry any additional value but it’s cool to know that it’s a unique piece.

Anyways, I took the watch head by itself into the AD last night to order a new bracelet. They took the watch to the back and came back after a few minutes and asked me if I’ve ever “altered the watch in any way”. I replied that it was my grandfathers and wasn’t sure of the history and asked what was wrong. They let me know that the reference number on the watch was 168000 and the 3rd zero was crooked and engraved at a different depth than the other numbers. I had a big sigh of relief that he wasn’t trying to tell me the dial or something else had been replaced or altered. In my research of the watch I did read that the additional zero was added by hand by Rolex, to differentiate the transitional watches from the previous 16800. Something about them switching to the new steel. I explained this to them at the AD but idk if they really believed me, they had never heard of that before. But this is the weird part… they told me that this reference does not exist at all and is not in the Rolex database and that they were unable to verify this watch. Surprisingly they still let me order the new bracelet for $1250, but I find it very strange that 168000 isn’t even in their database, I mean I know it’s supposed to be rare but is it THAT rare?

Now I’m worried about sending it off for servicing, that maybe they’ll think it’s fake or it’s been altered and either refuse service or not give it back. Idk if that’s what happens but I’ve heard some weird stories before.

If you’re curious, his serial number is 97xxxxx

[rootbeer7]

The AD doesn’t know Rolex. They do exist. The last zero was an addition and often looks sloppy. Post an image of the model number between the lugs and you’ll get plenty of confirmation here.

[TuRo]

AD's are full of people who know next to nothing about anything non-contemporaneous imho.

One told me my art deco boiler gauge 16030 was fake dial !

Any expertise is at the vintage team at the R.S.C.'s only I've found.

[brandrea]

Welcome to the forum. They do exist … your AD isn’t in the know I guess.

[learningtofly]

Not unusual for AD staff to be clueless, sadly.

[Nick9]

Not too surprising.

I was once told that there was no such thing as an Air-King Date.

[swaini3]

I wonder if any AD staff come on here to learn something after being presented with watches they are not familiar with.

[greekbum]

The AD has no clue what he is talking about they exist and are very rare made for a very short period of time.

[btinl]

ADs often have no clue about the modern watches they are selling. It is not surprising they are clueless about older models.

[Dan S]

I think that threads like this are useful because they continue to illustrate how useless many ADs are with respect to vintage watches.

[77T]

You shouldn’t have any problem getting a service done - RSC knows from the serial number that it was a 168000.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jackie Daytona]

Really not too surprising. I took my 16750 in to an AD once (early 2000s) and because it was an older matte dial model the SA was trying to convince me it was fake. Eventually the manager showed him it was in fact real, but what a silly interaction that was in an AD.

[ronricks]

AD’s barely know about modern watches much less anything vintage or neo vintage. Ignore their stupidity.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by jasons_supra

. . .

Now I’m worried about sending it off for servicing, that maybe they’ll think it’s fake or it’s been altered and either refuse service or not give it back. Idk if that’s what happens but I’ve heard some weird stories before.

If you’re curious, his serial number is 97xxxxx

No need to worry, except at that particular AD.

The whole point of the added zero, which Rolex did, is to show that this is a 904L Steel case (ala 16610), but still carries the old movement (ala 16800), since the cases were ready, but the movement was not, at that time.

The whole world knows this, except for - well, apparently a couple of people.!

[cruvon]

That’s why ADs should employ people who have vintage watch forum membership, should be a compulsory qualification :)

[zapokee]

Most ADs are just vanilla sales people with little expertise of vintage Rolex. Or even modern Rolex, for that matter.

I was told by the lady in my local AD that the Oysterquartz 17000 I was wearing didn't exist, and that I should buy a genuine new model to replace it.

[jasons_supra]

Everyone has made me feel a lot better! I know the reference exists, I was just worried that if I sent it in for servicing they would think it's fake. But sounds like this is just an AD issue and Rolex itself will have no issues with it.

[XavierM]

From what I have read, 168000 is not a model reference for Rolex, but juste a mid case reference.
Your watch is considered by Rolex a 16800 with the updated case (as explained above).

I remember seeing Rolex service papers for a 168000 stating 16800.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by XavierM

From what I have read, 168000 is not a model reference for Rolex, but juste a mid case reference.
Your watch is considered by Rolex a 16800 with the updated case (as explained above).

I remember seeing Rolex service papers for a 168000 stating 16800.

Yes, correct. Rolex paperwork and manuals/booklets for the 168000 state 16800 instead, for the reasons mentioned above.

Here's the service card for my 168000, and the watch with the engraving.

OP, don't worry about sending it for service to any RSCs, which are not perfect but usually will know a lot more than ADs.

[Styles Bitchley]

Originally Posted by swish77

Yes, correct. Rolex paperwork and manuals/booklets for the 168000 state 16800 instead, for the reasons mentioned above.

Here's the service card for my 168000, and the watch with the engraving.

OP, don't worry about sending it for service to any RSCs, which are not perfect but usually will know a lot more than ADs.

Jesus. That's nice!

[Vlad]

Originally Posted by swish77

Yes, correct. Rolex paperwork and manuals/booklets for the 168000 state 16800 instead, for the reasons mentioned above.

Just checked my original papers for the 168000, and they are marked 16800A. As such, I have to agree that 168000 never officially existed.

[Joearch]

Nice background on the 168000. I came real close to one 5-6 years ago. Cool transitional piece. Ended up with a 16600. Love the vintage section on TRF. THX

[Phwtch1]

Isn't the first time I've heard of an AD being clueless when it comes to watches. It's like not knowing your own craft, quite funny but sad.
Don't get all worked up OP, you'll not lose it or anything if it's sent to servicing.

Sent from my A5_Pro using Tapatalk

[joli160]

You may want to find another place for servicing this watch. In this shop there is no telling what they would do to it and ruin it

[XavierM]

Originally Posted by swish77

Yes, correct. Rolex paperwork and manuals/booklets for the 168000 state 16800 instead, for the reasons mentioned above.

Here's the service card for my 168000, and the watch with the engraving.

OP, don't worry about sending it for service to any RSCs, which are not perfect but usually will know a lot more than ADs.

Condition of this one is incredible

[swish77]

Originally Posted by XavierM

Condition of this one is incredible

Thank you! A lot of the early gloss dials on the 168000 crack or get oddly blotchy. I got lucky with this so-called "Z" dial. It's pristine, with an even matte appearance just starting to creep in.

Another thing to check on the 168000, to make sure it's all original, is the inside of the case back. It needs to have the rugby ball logo on it for the upgraded metal. The 16800s don't (or shouldn't) have that.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by joli160

You may want to find another place for servicing this watch. In this shop there is no telling what they would do to it and ruin it

Right.

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by swish77

Thank you! A lot of the early gloss dials on the 168000 crack or get oddly blotchy. I got lucky with this so-called "Z" dial. It's pristine, with an even matte appearance just starting to creep in.

Another thing to check on the 168000, to make sure it's all original, is the inside of the case back. It needs to have the rugby ball logo on it for the upgraded metal. The 16800s don't (or shouldn't) have that.

Indeed. The cartouche stamp as it's called (or oval) is usually for precious metal casebacks and on the 168000 was stamped with Rolex.S.A and was a little marker to ensure that 316L (std 16800) and 904L mid-case and casebacks didn't get mixed together on same watch. These cartouche ones are 904L as per 168000 mid case.

[swaini3]

Service casebacks for older references do have the (rugby ball) stamp, so I doubt it is to do with avoiding mixing steels. I am sure if you order a caseback for a 16800 from Rolex now, they will probably provide the one Aaron has shown.

[TuRo]

I'm sure you are right that many service casebacks also have the cartouche / rugby ball indicator.

Btw Mo, are the service casebacks you mention though before mid-80s or perhaps later 904L steel produced ones I wonder.....and hence the cartouche is applied.

The info I gave was from an ex-employee that I spoke to from factory, and he said that it was a long transition from mid-80s right up to 2003 to get everything onto 904L, and therefore they had stocks of both in service, and there was some uncertainty in early days vis compatibility/complementing etc.

I'm sure all service casebacks are now are 904L (as Rolex don't manuf. the old steel for 20 yrs) and are fitted comfortably to all the old 316L mid-cased 5513/1680/1675/1601/1655's etc etc of course.

He also interestingly said that the first Rolex to use 904L was not the 168000, but actually the mid-production Sea Dweller in 1985/6 (Triple 6 Matte/WGS transition !?), but there was no big announcement/delineation at the time.

Whether that's right or not, I just don't know.