16013 w/ Tiffany & Co stamp, sigma dial, and chapter ring?

[ASmith1278]

1978 Rolex Datejust 16013 serial starting 53....w/ a Tiffany & Co stamp, sigma dial, and a chapter ring. I've found variations with two of the above dial traits but never all three. I've scoured the internet to find another example but have not yet found one. It is either extremely rare or a fake.

[linesiders]

I have never seen one of those with all three at the same time, either. That said I do not chase them but this one I might.

What is intriguing on this is the chapter ring has a bump or cut out at each loom marker, where the ring is not perfectly circular. Plus each lume marker is slightly offset, which is actually a good indicator of being legit.

On the other examples you found with the chapter ring, do they have those bump outs, I guess more their bump ins, at each loom marker?

[TimeToGo]

.
Welcome to the Forum
.
Here you go, just add the tiffany print...
.
https://bulangandsons.com/products/r...ing-dial-16013
.

[linesiders]

And from one of our members IG pages:

Looks legit to me, certainly for the underlying dial combination, just need to verify the Tiffany part.

[77T]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

.
Here you go, just add the tiffany print...
.

Pretty much what I think happened to the DJ the OP posted.

For the OP:
That is a sigma dialed DJ that someone added a bad Tiffany stamp onto the dial.

You can find good examples of legit DJs with Tiffany & Co dials on the web to compare and you'll see what I mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tekno]

Did Tiffany add the markings themselves? Lots of double signed rolex dial talk lately.

[ASmith1278]

Originally Posted by 77T

Pretty much what I think happened to the DJ the OP posted.

For the OP:
That is a sigma dialed DJ that someone added a bad Tiffany stamp onto the dial.

You can find good examples of legit DJs with Tiffany & Co dials on the web to compare and you'll see what I mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Noting that most Tiffany & Co stamps start above the first "E" in SUPERLATIVE and end between the first "E" and "T" in CHRONOMETER in Datejust references found on the internet. Stamping on this one may be too large to be real. Additionally, the smudge along the chapter ring between the 53rd and 54th minute markers could also be an indication of tampering with the dial.

Chapter ring and sigma dial seem to be in line with the reference and dating. Open to all thoughts and opinions here.

[TimeToGo]

.
But it is not a Sigma..

[offrdmania]

Keep in mind that without any provenance or paperwork, a Tiffany dial is only a novelty and considered aftermarket. It is one of the most faked markings on a Rolex dial.

[ASmith1278]

77T, thanks for the feedback. Reviewing other Tiffany & Co stamped Datejust examples online I am noting that the stamp typically starts above the first "E" in SUPERLATIVE and ends between the first "E" and "T" in CHRNOMETER. The stamp on this version appears to be too large from what I am seeing. Additionally, there is a smudge along the chapter ring between the 53rd and 54th second markings which could further evidence dial tampering.

Sigma dial and chapter ring seem in line with the model, serial, production date. Open to all further thoughts on this. Was optimistic that I found a rare dial variation but aware there are plenty of fakes out there.

[ASmith1278]

UPDATE: I take back what I said earlier regarding the width of the Tiffany & Co stamping based on a Vintage Rolex Forum thread which specifically references Tiffany dial 16013's including expert analysis from Xeramic.

[ASmith1278]

Update: below is a response from Xeramic regarding the 16013 in question on Vintage Rolex Forum:

"Hi,

I wouldn't mind too much about missing "twins"; the dial type exists and matches the date (it's 1977), the Tiffany font would be correct as well ("would", as this low pic quality doesn't allow a safe judgement).

Greetings,
Xeramic"

[TimeToGo]

.
You were told the dial existed here too.

But you need better pictures to make a determination on the Tiffany writing. Your picture is not that sharp to determine that.

[ASmith1278]

Adding the Tiffany & Co stamped 16013 in question (at the top) v. Tiffany printing examples from Xeramic's VRF post dated May 26, 2023 for comparison purposes:

[TimeToGo]

.
I am very familiar with that comparison, in fact there is a better /updated version of that - that you have not found in your research.

So now, let's see, Xeramic can not make a definite call on the Tiffany writing based on your picture but you are now asking on TRF to do so. So on post #11 of this post you took back your concern (discrepancies), which we are not discussing here, based on Xeramic's view.

You should do as Xeramic said and post a better picture (I also agree you should), there (and here if you like for discussion), and see which response you like best..

As mentioned by Offrdmania, with these dials - provinance / papers - trump everything. Or you can pay for the premium and just state that Xeramic said it was good at the end..

Good Luck