Exactly. Like no 168000 from 1987 would ever have a replaced bezel insert lolol

16800 and 168000 all left the factory with flat 4s and that's what is period correct... The ones that are not flat 4s are the ones that were later replaced during service...

Just curious (as the owner of a 168000) are people actually counterfeiting these by adding the extra zero? I didn't think that there was anything to be gained by doing so.

Here are a couple pics of mine. Purchased new from an AD in 1988. Serial R590xxx.

That's just not true and I would actually say exactly the opposite. Here's my 16800 bezel. The original 16800 bezels were kind of an in between with a rounded 4.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...54e6092785.jpg

And my 14060 bezel with flat four to show what an actual flat four looks like.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...d0b836a454.jpg

Here's one that was clearly serviced at some point because it has a later white gold surrounds dial (should be matte with a 7.4 million serial) so I'd wager the bezel was also replaced. Sporting a flat four
https://d2ok2xewd7jb6a.cloudfront.ne...2ec44131ac.jpg

Im talking about the transitioned gloss models... I know the Matte dials mostly had the rounded style...

Exactly. Otherwise 95% of the watches that HQ Milton sell have service inserts.
Someone should tell Jacek :chuckle:

yes serviced to a gloss dial hence the flat 4 that was used in the transitional models 16800/168000 I mentioned above

Again to both of you Im speaking about the transitional gloss models 16800/168000 and not the matte dial which had the rounded pointy 4... The transitional gloss models all came with flat 4's from factory....

HQ milton doesnt always sell everything period correct and the funny thing you mention this cause i was just looking at 593 end links on ebay just now. Contacted the seller about the condition and so forth and out of nowhere he said his selling cause He bought a 1603 datejust from Hqmilton with a oyster style bracelet and it had the 593 end links on them which was incorrect so he bought the correct ones and selling those...

Well your original reply did say
and I don't believe your correction is correct either.

Here's a 9.8 mil serial with the same rounded 4
https://d2ok2xewd7jb6a.cloudfront.ne...bbd4746da2.jpg

Here's a 9.4 mil serial with the same rounded 4
https://d2ok2xewd7jb6a.cloudfront.ne...65577a25fb.jpg

Here's a 8.6 mil serial with what I'd almost certainly say is a service dial considering the dial patina compared to the bezel pip patina
https://d2ok2xewd7jb6a.cloudfront.ne...e3a81c99bf.jpg

ok no point of arguing you will believe what you believe... I stand by what i say about the transitional gloss dials... All these pointed 4's are not correct for this period... Im moving on to the next thread topic :bye:

I mean if you're going to claim something as fact like you did you should back it up with evidence. Plenty of people use this site when they're doing research on their purchases so having the proper info in here is important.

That watch with the 8.6 million serial does not have a service dial. It was used before the fat coronet dial was introduced during the later part of 1980s.

Also, I see nothing wrong with the 168000 stamping on the 168000 in the original post. Those calling it out as having an added "0" to a 16800 case are mistaken.

Not all serial number or model number stampings on these models had the same alignment - whether Submariners, GMTs or other models.

Sorry, meant service bezel insert*

I thought this was about "Added 0's" not inserts?

I never said this had a service dial I said the 8.6 had a service insert..

It is, but the topic of inserts came up.

Exactly, the only one with the flat four insert happens to have a service insert.

Just to add I went though the HQmilton archives from 1979-1990 (16800-168000-16610) and the flat fours didn't start to show up in any significant numbers until E serial 16610s. The overwhelming majority had the rounded 4 font. (also I know I have no life)

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...54e6092785.jpg

you sure? all of them all original box and papers I listed below... I dont care about the ones that dont have box and papers... A quick search says otherwise and I DO HAVE A LIFE and done beating a dead horse, you beileve what you want :bye:

Oh and by the way as I mentioned above HQmilton doesnt always sell period correct parts. A seller on ebay is selling 593 end links he took off a 1603 datejust that he bought from HQmilton and is selling it now since he got the correct end links....


https://www.subgmt.com/submariner-16...ers-mint/a6250

http://rolexpassionmarket.com/watche...00-box-papers/

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=590371

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...a-t193270.html

Correct, it was the other guy.

Since you are new to the forum, proper decorum would be for you and the other guy to start your own thread regarding bezel inserts. Your quibbling back -and-forth about something unrelated to this thread is annoying for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you, John

I don't think it's unrelated. OP asked if his 168000 was actually a 168000. One way to help determine that is if it has parts (dial/bezel) that came on factory spec 168000s.

It's is called a bezel insert not a bezel. A bezel is a stainless steel ring that holds the bezel insert and rotates on the crystal retainer.

Further, a bezel insert has nothing to do with anything in this thread regarding an altered case. Inserts are changed all the time and are not and should not be used by anyone to determine whether a case has been altered.

There has been a lot of misinformation posted in this thread and hopefully many of the newer vintage collectors will realize this when reading the thread.

Again, if you want to discuss bezel inserts - start your own thread and have some respect for the member that posted this thread which is totally unrelated to bezel inserts.

I can't help but add a comment or two.

Agree that there are essentially two different threads here. As has been indicated, clarity, as well as respect for the initial poster would have been better served with two separate topics (IMO).

Also, some rather broad blanket statements have been made for which no evidence was provided.

While I certainly want to encourage newbies, we all need to understand that many rely on this forum to assist in purchase and sale decisions.

With that said, the pics I posted above are an example of a 168000 that is, sans the crystal, original/period correct.