![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
![]()
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/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
"TRF" Life Patron
Join Date: Jun 2005
Real Name: Peter
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng
Watch: ing you.
Posts: 52,815
|
The 116200/1 is 145g oyster bracelet.
__________________
ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dennis
Location: Bay Area - 925
Posts: 40,018
|
I have owned a 16200 and a 116200 and the 116200 is noticeably heavier.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
"TRF" Life Patron
Join Date: Jun 2005
Real Name: Peter
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng
Watch: ing you.
Posts: 52,815
|
It is by 45 g
__________________
ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Real Name: WatchULookinAt
Location: US
Posts: 564
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dennis
Location: Bay Area - 925
Posts: 40,018
|
My 16200 was a Jubilee and my 116200 was an Oyster.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Real Name: Alan
Location: Connecticut
Watch: 114270 16710B
Posts: 1,062
|
Wow, check the bottom of that list - never thought the WG Daytona was such a heavyweight! Also surprised at the Milgauss.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Real Name: Christopher
Location: Georgia, USA
Watch: ing the Sea...
Posts: 6,713
|
That Day-Date Platinum is a dang boat anchor ~ Wow!
__________________
"I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way." Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 "Curmudgeons ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
2024 ROLEX SUBMARINER 41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 41,540
|
Quote:
![]() 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 ![]()
__________________
Does anyone really know what time it is? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
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! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Real Name: Jon
Location: USA
Watch: DJ - Need Sub Bad
Posts: 1,889
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Real Name: Jon
Location: USA
Watch: DJ - Need Sub Bad
Posts: 1,889
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,552
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
Another calculation:
Take 16200 add filled center links 99+(0,8 * ,92 * 0,22 * 13) * 8 = 116 g approx for 116200 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: May 2011
Real Name: Kevin
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 3,260
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 36
|
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
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
I'm still looking for an answer!
![]() So how much does the SS Datejust 116200 with oyster bracelet weight? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Real Name: Alan
Location: Connecticut
Watch: 114270 16710B
Posts: 1,062
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New Mexico
Watch: SeaDweller
Posts: 224
|
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. Last edited by sigguy; 26 October 2013 at 01:55 PM.. Reason: clarification |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
TRF Moderator & 2024 SUBMARINER Patron
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Adam
Location: Far East
Watch: SEIKO TUNA
Posts: 28,599
|
My Milgauss is 156g, other people have said 157g. Not 150g.
__________________
_______________________ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: World - Peace!
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
![]() 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! ![]() 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! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New Mexico
Watch: SeaDweller
Posts: 224
|
Nice job reconciling the number!
Regards, Jack D. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: France
Posts: 13
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
116200 , datejust , gram , grams , weight |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.