![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
![]() |
#31 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Real Name: Will
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 553
|
The first SUBMARINER-DATE to use 904L steel was the reference 168000. I don't know when it was used in other models.
Here is a picture of my R serial (1987) 168000 along side my 8.2M 16800 (with the crappy 316L steel). Just look how much better the 904L steel looks compared to the 316L. It's HIGHLY noticeable, right? Well isn't it? ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bahston
Posts: 127
|
'bsolutely. Send the lowly 16800 to me. I'll cover postage.
![]()
__________________
1680 Submariner ~ 5513 Submariner ~ 16710 GMT Master II ~ 145.00.22 Speedmaster Professional ~ 2531.80 Seamaster Professional ~ Marathon TSAR |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Real Name: Pat
Location: PNW
Watch: your P's and Q's
Posts: 2,549
|
Compared to some 'lesser' watches I own, I will admit that the 'luster' of my stainless Rolexes are much more 'luxurious'. Even the brushed finish parts look rich. There is a darker element (carbon?) to the Rolex. The others look whiter w/no character or depth to the sheen. The Rolex just looks elegant. Whether that's the steel or the method of finishing, I don't know. Just some personal observations. As for Will's pic... no I don't see the diff.
__________________
Rolex GMT Master II 16710 (Blk/Blk) Rolex Explorer 114270 Sinn 356 Sa Flieger Limes Endurance 1Tausend Too many others... #2592 It may seem like I'm doing nothing but, at a cellular level, I'm actually quite busy... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Watch: Air-King 114200
Posts: 2,878
|
yes, hearsay and (unsubstantiated) opinions abound on this and other like forums.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.