Weight of the SS Datejust 116200

[WeThe]

Hi!

I'm very sensitive to heavy watches. So I'm wondering how much the 16200 added in weight when it became the 116200?

The 16200 comes in at (from what I've found on the Internet) very close to 100 g, perhaps 102 gram (grams) depending on how many links you've removed.

But the 116200 is a little beefier, and foremost the bracelet has solid center links (scl), and the bracelet is now a little wider.

116233 I think is 137 g with jubilee (german webpage).

So how much does the SS Datejust 116200 with oyster bracelet weight?



Extra: materials specs:
http://www.smt.sandvik.com/en/materi...sandvik-2rk65/

[padi56]

The 116200/1 is 145g oyster bracelet.

[sea-dweller]

I have owned a 16200 and a 116200 and the 116200 is noticeably heavier.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by sea-dweller

I have owned a 16200 and a 116200 and the 116200 is noticeably heavier.

It is by 45 g

[TimingIsEverything]

Originally Posted by padi56

The 116200/1 is 145g oyster bracelet.

This seems a little high considering I thought that's what the 116610 ceramic submariner weighed in at with the glidelock clasp, 40mm case and thicker beefier lines.

[sea-dweller]

My 16200 was a Jubilee and my 116200 was an Oyster.

[WeThe]

Originally Posted by padi56

The 116200/1 is 145g oyster bracelet.

Hi! Thank you! But are you sure about that? Or is 116200/1 the same as 116201?

from below:
116223 137 g jubilee
116201 145 g oyster

Densities:
Gold: 19.30 g·cm−3
904L: 8.0 g/cm3

[alanc]

Wow, check the bottom of that list - never thought the WG Daytona was such a heavyweight! Also surprised at the Milgauss.

[Cc1966]

That Day-Date Platinum is a dang boat anchor ~ Wow!

[77T]

Originally Posted by padi56

The 116200/1 is 145g oyster bracelet.

Originally Posted by WeThe

Hi! Thank you! But are you sure about that? Or is 116200/1 the same as 116201?

from below:
116223 137 g jubilee
116201 145 g oyster

Densities:
Gold: 19.30 g·cm−3
904L: 8.0 g/cm3

Well I guess no good deed goes unpunished, Peter...

OP: If you had the data at hand, why ask the question?
Yes the 116200 is essentially same weight within a gram as the 116201. the only difference is the 01 has WG fluted bezel. The gold bezel is about the same weight ad the bulkier SS domed bezel on the 00 model. Your wrist won't know the difference between 116200 & 116201

[WeThe]

Originally Posted by 77T

Well I guess no good deed goes unpunished, Peter...

OP: If you had the data at hand, why ask the question?
Yes the 116200 is essentially same weight within a gram as the 116201. the only difference is the 01 has WG fluted bezel. The gold bezel is about the same weight ad the bulkier SS domed bezel on the 00 model. Your wrist won't know the difference between 116200 & 116201

No, I don't have the data at hand.

I'm still looking for the weight of a SS Datejust 116200 with oyster bracelet.

I'm no Rolex expert, but the images I get when I search for 116201 is a two tone gold steel watch, including the bracelet that has solid gold center links.

Looking at my 16570, the center links seem to be approx 0.9*1.0*0.3 cm (let's assume they're not rounded).

13 of those, in gold, weight: 0.9*1.0*0.3*13*19.3=67.7g
So let's forget that the bezel on the 116201 is gold
Then the 116200 weight is: 145-67.7+0.9*1.0*0.3*13*8.0=105,4 g

This seems too light compared to 16200 at 99 g, but far from 145g.

Please tell me where I'm wrong?

So how much does the SS Datejust 116200 with oyster bracelet weight?

Take care!

[DJJon]

Originally Posted by alanc

Wow, check the bottom of that list - never thought the WG Daytona was such a heavyweight! Also surprised at the Milgauss.

I suppose the Milgauss weighs more because it has a double case back (inner and outer). Maybe the thicker crystal too.

[DJJon]

Funny thing is I weighed my 116233 last week as part of a watch comparison. It came in at 136 grams BUT I only use a few links plus a '1 1/4' link as my wrist is smaller at 6 7/8"

I would have thought the reference weight chart would include all the factory links so therefore come in heavier.

[Alpino]

Originally Posted by 77T

...
Yes the 116200 is essentially same weight within a gram as the 116201. the only difference is the 01 has WG fluted bezel. The gold bezel is about the same weight ad the bulkier SS domed bezel on the 00 model. Your wrist won't know the difference between 116200 & 116201

116201 don't have a WG fluted bezel, but a RG doomed bezel. It also have a partly RG band, and a RG crown.

That may make the weight difference compared to a full SS 116200.

[WeThe]

Another calculation:

Take 16200
add filled center links
99+(0,8 * ,92 * 0,22 * 13) * 8 = 116 g approx for 116200

[WeThe]

Originally Posted by DJJon

Funny thing is I weighed my 116233 last week as part of a watch comparison. It came in at 136 grams BUT I only use a few links plus a '1 1/4' link as my wrist is smaller at 6 7/8"

I would have thought the reference weight chart would include all the factory links so therefore come in heavier.

Jubilee or oyster bracelet?

[WeThe]

Originally Posted by DJJon

Funny thing is I weighed my 116233 last week as part of a watch comparison. It came in at 136 grams BUT I only use a few links plus a '1 1/4' link as my wrist is smaller at 6 7/8"

I would have thought the reference weight chart would include all the factory links so therefore come in heavier.

Originally Posted by WeThe

Jubilee or oyster bracelet?

What I meant was that the 137 g for "all" links in the table is for a jubilee bracelet, the oyster might be heavier and that might explain why you got so close to 137 with many links removed, if you've got an oyster bracelet that is. I'm guessing here but I might be right!

[yessir69]

Originally Posted by sea-dweller

I have owned a 16200 and a 116200 and the 116200 is noticeably heavier.

What he said.

[WeThe]

Originally Posted by DJJon

I suppose the Milgauss weighs more because it has a double case back (inner and outer). Maybe the thicker crystal too.

No doubt! It probably also have a thicker dial or some iron under the dial to make it shield the movement from magnetic fields.

One fun comparison is between the 38.5 mm Omega Aqua Terra. The auto version and the quartz have almost the same weight, becuase the quartz version has a steel case back and inner iron anti-magnetic case back cover. Just looking at the movement the quartz is a lot lighter.

[QuasPrimas25]

Milgauss has a soft iron "inner case" surrounding the movement, including under the dial, which is why it doesn't have a date -the fewer openings, the better. So it's a pretty dense watch considering that most other watches of its size have empty space instead of iron around the movement

[WeThe]

Originally Posted by QuasPrimas25

Milgauss has a soft iron "inner case" surrounding the movement, including under the dial, which is why it doesn't have a date -the fewer openings, the better. So it's a pretty dense watch considering that most other watches of its size have empty space instead of iron around the movement

I guess the size of any opening in a magnetic shield, as a date window, compromises the shield, but I guess the size of the opening and how much it lets inside would be dependent on the frequency of the field.

Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra > 15,000 gauss has date. But, the OMEGA movement does not rely on a protective container inside the watchcase but on the use of selected non-ferromagnetic materials in the movement itself.

What "magnetic flux density" limit the Milgauss have I couldn't find on Rolex webpage. Omega's webpage claims the >15000 as "best".

IWC Ingenieur 500000 A/m also have date.

[WeThe]

I'm still looking for an answer!

So how much does the SS Datejust 116200 with oyster bracelet weight?

[alanc]

Originally Posted by WeThe

I'm still looking for an answer!

So how much does the SS Datejust 116200 with oyster bracelet weight?

I thought Peter answered your question, no?

[WeThe]

Originally Posted by alanc

I thought Peter answered your question, no?

Yes, he answered the question, but I'm not sure 145 g is the correct answer.

It's the same as a twotone new Datejust and the same as much bigger stainless steel Rolex watches.

I'm open to that 145 g is the correct answer, but reading this entire thread I don't see much indicating this.

[sigguy]

Didn't follow the rest of the thread completely, but my wife is wearing her 116200 in the next room;
I grabbed it from her and put it on my scale. Nothing like primary data...

116200 with 9 links: 113.47g
Each individual complete extra link: 3.19g
Total with 12 links: 123.04g

Scale precision +/- 0.02g.

Hers has the stick/bullseye dial (no heavy gold roman numerals here!)

Substantial difference between it and the 116201, and right
in the range of what you projected (at 116g).

Regards,

Jack D.

[Old Expat Beast]

My Milgauss is 156g, other people have said 157g. Not 150g.

[WeThe]

Originally Posted by sigguy

Didn't follow the rest of the thread completely, but my wife is wearing her 116200 in the next room;
I grabbed it from her and put it on my scale. Nothing like primary data...

116200 with 9 links: 113.47g
Each individual complete extra link: 3.19g
Total with 12 links: 123.04g

Scale precision +/- 0.02g.

Hers has the stick/bullseye dial (no heavy gold roman numerals here!)

Substantial difference between it and the 116201, and right
in the range of what you projected (at 116g).

Regards,

Jack D.

Thank you very much Jack!! Your wife have a very beautiful watch, she chose one of the best looking dials!


The table above is given with 13 links, so that would give us
126.23 g

(I'm a little confused with how to count the links, so they might mean your number 12 when they write 13, so then it's)
OR

123.04 g


My guesses were 105.4 g and 116 g. Now I know why the 105.4 g calculation was so far off, I used solid gold density, not the 18 k that's in the twotone!


Densities:
Gold 24k: 19.30 g·cm−3
Gold 18k: 15.9 g/cm3
904L: 8.0 g/cm3

With 18k and 13 links I get:
145 - (0,9 * 1 * 0,3 * 13) * (15,9 - 8) ~=117g
That's more like it, and far from the faulty 105.4!

Further, let's assume that the link bit pins take up space, and are in steel, even less to replace into 18k gold, let's assume they take 20% -> 80% 18k gold in the links to replace:

145 - (0,9 * 1 * 0,3 * 13 * 0,8) * (15,9 - 8) ~= 123 g

Wow! Spot on! It's always easy when you have a correct answer to match your calculations to! :-)


weight difference
145-123= 22 g

eq:
x*(15,9-8.0)=22

x~=2,78 cm3

worth:
43.5 USD/g Au

43.5*2,78*15,9*0,75 ~= 1 442 USD

(assume steel is "free")

The list price increase between those are about twice that amount, not "that" much.

Feels good that the numbers seem to match up. This means that Rolex sales people does not have to answer the same way as Omega sales people:

"Yes they [bracelet/links] are solid gold," , "just not solid all the way to the centre."

As a fanatic for non-heavy watches, I'm not totally opposed to this. But my guess is that Omegas concern are for their profit, not the wrists health of their customers...

Thank you all for replying to my thread!

Take care and have a nice Sunday!

[sigguy]

Nice job reconciling the number!

Regards,

Jack D.

[Torbadian]

Hey, I don't know how accurate this is since my datejust 36 116201 weights 126 gramms when minus 3 joins less. All weighs around 137.5 gramms. Something doesn't addup.