Odd engraving on DJ 1601

[southtexas]

I bought a DJ 1601 with the following:

Non-hacking Non-quickset 1570 movement
'69 stamped caseback
4.34 mil serial number
NO "stainless steel" above serial
"1601" between lugs looks standard for late 60's/early 70's

My research shows me the late 60's-early 70's 1601 cases didn't have "stainless steel" script above the serial number, while later cases (4 mil, for example) did have it.

The serial on this watch is extremely cleanly done and looks 100% "Rolex" to me, but does not have "stainless steel" above serial (looking through loupe, there is no remnant of any marking in its place at all).

Thoughts on this--if a serial was completely decimated for some reason, would RSC assign it a "new" one for it while not replacing the entire case? This serial is close to the known service case numbers...is it a "service serial" put on the original case?

See pics please:








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Richard Carver]

It is a 4X case, might be a service case stamped with 1601 back in the day and the serial number at the time it was supplied to the RSC.

That case has been in use for a long time!

[springer]

It is not uncommon to see the "STAINLESS STEEL" engraving missing from between the lugs during the 1960s. I've seen it on many Datejusts, GMTS and Subs, just to name a few.

Regarding your watch, the serial number is very late for a '69 case back. As well, it the serial numbering stamping does look very fresh when compared to the model number stamping. I would surmise that it has been re-stamped at some point. I believe I have read that one of the service centers in Asia - possibility in the Philippines - might have re-stamped the serial number.

[swish77]

Is it possible that this is indeed a correctly engraved mid-'70s DJ on which the case back was replaced at some point with an older one?

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by swish77

Is it possible that this is indeed a correctly engraved mid-'70s DJ on which the case back was replaced at some point with an older one?

I thought that at first, but it doesn't explain the lack of "stainless steel" above the serial. I haven't seen a mid 70's case without it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[offrdmania]

I thought cases starting with a 4xxxxxx were service cases. Most likely it was a blank case that was engraved during a case replacement.

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by offrdmania

I thought cases starting with a 4xxxxxx were service cases. Most likely it was a blank case that was engraved during a case replacement.

I thought 4.4 mil was the start of the service cases until they ran out, then started again at 4.7. Maybe this is old info...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by Richard Carver

It is a 4X case, might be a service case stamped with 1601 back in the day and the serial number at the time it was supplied to the RSC.

That case has been in use for a long time!

Interesting theory, and seems possible. I'm certain it's all factory, just trying to flesh out the chronology. Thanks for the input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[springer]

Originally Posted by swish77

Is it possible that this is indeed a correctly engraved mid-'70s DJ on which the case back was replaced at some point with an older one?

Not at all. The serial stamping is way too fresh and does not match with the other stamping. The case back doesn't match the correct era for the serial. Way too many "what ifs" with the watch.

[springer]

Originally Posted by offrdmania

I thought cases starting with a 4xxxxxx were service cases. Most likely it was a blank case that was engraved during a case replacement.

That would not be correct. 4.4 and higher are service. I've never read anything definite on the 4.3 million cases, let alone seen many beginning with that serial number.

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by springer

Not at all. The serial stamping is way too fresh and does not match with the other stamping. The case back doesn't match the correct era for the serial. Way too many "what ifs" with the watch.

Since we aren't discussing some high dollar vintage sport model, I think this is simply an interesting case study into "why". I'd bet money (already did, actually!) the case and serial were engraved by Rolex, trying to sort out the timeline/reasoning is what's interesting to me. Ultimately, we'll never know, but I enjoy attempting to piece the story together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[endautrestermes]

Hello,

Sorry to revive this old one but I figured it was better than opening a new one on the same subject.

I find the engravings of this caseback pretty odd and "not rolex like" with the imprecisions of some engravings. Also, it mentions the year "70", which seems not consistent with its serial number 249XXXX (1968?)

Thanks for your thoughts on this one !

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by endautrestermes

Hello,

Sorry to revive this old one but I figured it was better than opening a new one on the same subject.

I find the engravings of this caseback pretty odd and "not rolex like" with the imprecisions of some engravings. Also, it mentions the year "70", which seems not consistent with its serial number 249XXXX (1968?)

Thanks for your thoughts on this one !

Looks ok for the era IMO. And 2.49M is consistent with that II.70 case-back.

Edit: Here is one I owned from the same time. 2.51M serial. Same crappy pantograph printing and missing downstroke on the "P".

[endautrestermes]

Thanks for the reply :)

[XavierM]

To clarify, I would not expect it to be a « pantograph » problem as these writings are, as far as I know, stamped into the caseback and not engraved.

Kind regards,

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by XavierM

To clarify, I would not expect it to be a « pantograph » problem as these writings are, as far as I know, stamped into the caseback and not engraved.

Kind regards,

That makes sense, now that I think about it, since the stamps are all the same.