Lady Date vs Datejust Models, what's the distinction???

[Watchyourlanguage]

Hi all,

I'm looking for a vintage rolex ladies model for my wife and I stumbled upon something.

The oldest I'm looking for are the 69XXX references and boy these are confusing.

69174, 69173 - which come before the 79174 & 79173 are divided into
Date VS Datejust

Does anyone know what the differences are? They all seem to have the 2135 movement, and some models like the silver dialed ones seem to transition from DATE to DATEJUST on the dials.

I especially like the engine-turned bezel models such as 69190 and 69240, but these have the same problem with the naming. I am getting suspicious that these may be fake, but 34mm DATE models do exist which only adds to the confusion...

I attached some pictures of specific models that come to mind.

Thanks!

[crowncollection]

Originally Posted by Watchyourlanguage

Hi all,

I'm looking for a vintage rolex ladies model for my wife and I stumbled upon something.

The oldest I'm looking for are the 69XXX references and boy these are confusing.

69174, 69173 - which come before the 79174 & 79173 are divided into
Date VS Datejust

Does anyone know what the differences are? They all seem to have the 2135 movement, and some models like the silver dialed ones seem to transition from DATE to DATEJUST on the dials.

I especially like the engine-turned bezel models such as 69190 and 69240, but these have the same problem with the naming. I am getting suspicious that these may be fake, but 34mm DATE models do exist which only adds to the confusion...

I attached some pictures of specific models that come to mind.

Thanks!

Fate model is smaller, original watches in pics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Watchyourlanguage]

Thanks!

But I do believe all models mentioned are 26mm in diameter unlike the smaller vintage oyster perpetuals without dates, which can be 24mm

[offrdmania]

I thought the lady DateJust was in 32mm? Maybe im wrong though

[Watchyourlanguage]

I'm not 100% sure but I think that the Lady Datejust models are all under 31mm,
and the 31mm + models are all in the datejust line even though the 31mm models are targeted towards women

[CTech]

There is very little published information about the ladies models and so there seems to be a lot of confusion about the different configurations, dial script, etc.

In general, all the 69XX/X and 69XXX watches are virtually identical and use the same 26mm case and the same 29 jewel movement, bracelet, hands, etc.

The only difference is whether the movement has passed chronometer testing and certification or not and this determines what the watch is called (either Lady Datejust or Lady Date) and whether it has the Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified script on the dial.

Up until about 1992 there were only two configurations and the distinction was relatively simple:

Lady Datejust used a movement that had passed the chronometer certification and the dial had the Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified (SCOC) script.

Lady Date used a movement that was not chronometer certified and so had no SCOC script on the dial.

Initially, up to about 1985, the only Lady Datejust models available were in 18ct gold and so the early model numbers 6917/8, 6916/8, 6900/8, etc. and the later 69138, 69088, 69068, 69279, 69018 and 69178 models were all chronometer rated with SCOC dial script.

All other bi-metallic (6917/3, 69173 and 69163) and stainless steel models (6917/4, 6919/0, 69174, 69160 and 69190) used a non-chronometer movement and were marketed as the Lady Date with no SCOC script on the dial.

Things changed in 1985/1986 and the catalogues from that period show that the bi-metallic 69163 and 69173 models, together with the stainless steel 69174 were now using a chronometer certified movement and were marketed as the Lady Datejust with the SCOC dial script.

The stainless steel 69160 and 69190 models were still sold as the Lady Date with a non-chronometer certified movement and so had no SCOC script on the dial.

This situation remained stable until 1992/1993 when the stainless steel 69160 and 69190 models were sold with a chronometer certified movement. These were still marketed as the Lady Date but now there was the SCOC script on the dial.

So, there will be three different dial configurations available; Lady Datejust with the SCOC script, pre-1992/1993 Lady Date with no SCOC script and the post-1992/1993 Lady Date with the SCOC script.

Gold models from at least 1978 onwards always had the chronometer movement and so were sold as the Lady Datejust.

Depending on the age of the watch a bi-metallic 69163 or 69173 could have a non-chronometer movement and be a Lady Date (prior to 1985/1986) or have a chronometer movement and be a Lady Datejust (post 1985/1986).

Similarly, a stainless steel 69174 could be a Lady Date (prior to 1985/1986) or have a chronometer certified movement and be a Lady Datejust (post 1985/1986).

The stainless steel 69160 and 69190 models were always sold as the Lady Date and had a non-chronometer movement prior to 1992/1993 (no SCOC script) or had a chronometer certified movement after 1992/1993, now with the SCOC script on the dial.

It seems likely that chronometer certified movements were in short supply initially and so were used solely for the gold models, but as manufacturing methods improved and more were becoming available they were introduced into the bi-metallic models and then into some of the stainless steel models.

Most models changed from the Lady Date to the Lady Datejust when the chronometer certified movement was introduced, and so there is some sort of logic to the process, but part of the puzzle, as yet unexplained, is why the 69160 and 69190 models continued to be sold as the Lady Date after 1992/1993 when the chronometer certified movement was fitted.

We’ll probably never know the answer to this without getting access to the Rolex product development or marketing meeting notes, so it will likely remain as just another of the strange anomalies in Rolex nomenclature.

[Mark020]

Amen! Classic post

[Tomas Eriksson]

Originally Posted by CTech

There is very little published information about the ladies models and so there seems to be a lot of confusion about the different configurations, dial script, etc.

In general, all the 69XX/X and 69XXX watches are virtually identical and use the same 26mm case and the same 29 jewel movement, bracelet, hands, etc.

The only difference is whether the movement has passed chronometer testing and certification or not and this determines what the watch is called (either Lady Datejust or Lady Date) and whether it has the Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified script on the dial.

Up until about 1992 there were only two configurations and the distinction was relatively simple:

Lady Datejust used a movement that had passed the chronometer certification and the dial had the Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified (SCOC) script.

Lady Date used a movement that was not chronometer certified and so had no SCOC script on the dial.

Initially, up to about 1985, the only Lady Datejust models available were in 18ct gold and so the early model numbers 6917/8, 6916/8, 6900/8, etc. and the later 69138, 69088, 69068, 69279, 69018 and 69178 models were all chronometer rated with SCOC dial script.

All other bi-metallic (6917/3, 69173 and 69163) and stainless steel models (6917/4, 6919/0, 69174, 69160 and 69190) used a non-chronometer movement and were marketed as the Lady Date with no SCOC script on the dial.

Things changed in 1985/1986 and the catalogues from that period show that the bi-metallic 69163 and 69173 models, together with the stainless steel 69174 were now using a chronometer certified movement and were marketed as the Lady Datejust with the SCOC dial script.

The stainless steel 69160 and 69190 models were still sold as the Lady Date with a non-chronometer certified movement and so had no SCOC script on the dial.

This situation remained stable until 1992/1993 when the stainless steel 69160 and 69190 models were sold with a chronometer certified movement. These were still marketed as the Lady Date but now there was the SCOC script on the dial.

So, there will be three different dial configurations available; Lady Datejust with the SCOC script, pre-1992/1993 Lady Date with no SCOC script and the post-1992/1993 Lady Date with the SCOC script.

Gold models from at least 1978 onwards always had the chronometer movement and so were sold as the Lady Datejust.

Depending on the age of the watch a bi-metallic 69163 or 69173 could have a non-chronometer movement and be a Lady Date (prior to 1985/1986) or have a chronometer movement and be a Lady Datejust (post 1985/1986).

Similarly, a stainless steel 69174 could be a Lady Date (prior to 1985/1986) or have a chronometer certified movement and be a Lady Datejust (post 1985/1986).

The stainless steel 69160 and 69190 models were always sold as the Lady Date and had a non-chronometer movement prior to 1992/1993 (no SCOC script) or had a chronometer certified movement after 1992/1993, now with the SCOC script on the dial.

It seems likely that chronometer certified movements were in short supply initially and so were used solely for the gold models, but as manufacturing methods improved and more were becoming available they were introduced into the bi-metallic models and then into some of the stainless steel models.

Most models changed from the Lady Date to the Lady Datejust when the chronometer certified movement was introduced, and so there is some sort of logic to the process, but part of the puzzle, as yet unexplained, is why the 69160 and 69190 models continued to be sold as the Lady Date after 1992/1993 when the chronometer certified movement was fitted.

We’ll probably never know the answer to this without getting access to the Rolex product development or marketing meeting notes, so it will likely remain as just another of the strange anomalies in Rolex nomenclature.

Amazing information, thank you

[Watchyourlanguage]

Wow..!!

Thank you so much for the answer Mr. CTech. Your explanation pretty much answered all of my questions. Legandary response, thanks a ton again

** I have decided to go for the scoc certified DATEJUST models.