Rolex datejust 16203 polished or not ?

[Ale93am]

Hi to all members,
I got this datejust 16203,It has 20 years old.
Should i polish It or not ?


save screen gratis

[Ale93am]

[springer]

Totally your choice. If it is looking pretty ratty right now, maybe.

[Ale93am]

I'm confused right now...

Originally Posted by springer

Totally your choice. If it is looking pretty ratty right now, maybe.

[doyall]

I had my 30 year old 16203 polished with a RSC service in the US (not sure which one - AD sent it off) and could not be more pleased. Not overdone in the slightest, IMO. YMMV.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Ale93am

I'm confused right now...

Don’t be.
I don’t see anything wrong in those pictures that cry out for polishing.

I think the other comments are about preferences because many owners don’t want any polishing no matter what.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Ale93am]

Can you post a pics? Thanks

Originally Posted by doyall

I had my 30 year old 16203 polished with a RSC service in the US (not sure which one - AD sent it off) and could not be more pleased. Not overdone in the slightest, IMO. YMMV.

[pk552502]

Looks good to me as is. I like a little visible wear & tear.

[L.K Johnson]

I got a box of these from my AD:s watch smith and they are great to use to “refresh” polish parts in a watch without going for a full polish:

[Phwtch1]

From the pictures you uploaded, I see no reason why it should be polished.

[Filipão]

OP, please come back in about ten/fifteen years.

[Ale93am]

I'll hold like as well as ��

[996marty]

If it was me I’d be leaving it as is

[Dr.Smellody]

Looks like new to me. I'd give it another 50 years.

[robinmgb]

I’d definitely polish it, as long as it’s done by an expert, will look good as new and retain case shape/lugs etc.

[Dan S]

I can't see anything in the photos that would lead me to think it needs polishing, but I don't mind small hairline scratches and swirls. If you want the watch to look new, get it polished.

By the way, this is not a vintage watch IMO. Just a pre-owned DJ from the modern era, so no need to worry about preserving collectible value.

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by Dan S

I can't see anything in the photos that would lead me to think it needs polishing, but I don't mind small hairline scratches and swirls. If you want the watch to look new, get it polished.

By the way, this is not a vintage watch IMO. Just a pre-owned DJ from the modern era, so no need to worry about preserving collectible value.

I agree with all that.

Your last sentence made me recall the discourse merely a decade ago with chaps on the forum.

Many of whom argued that 90's Subs and GMTs wouldn't ever be collectable...like below....

____________________________________________

16 April 2012, 09:36 PM
well, by that logic wont the 16610 be the 1680?

i mean, they are all nice watches..i would base it on my own preferences rather than future collectible value - there are way too many 16610's and 14060's for either to be collectible in my mind.

______________________________________________

Well he got that right didn't he ..... !! Rgds Paul

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by TuRo

I agree with all that.

Your last sentence made me recall the discourse merely a decade ago with chaps on the forum.

Many of whom argued that 90's Subs and GMTs wouldn't ever be collectable...like below....

____________________________________________

16 April 2012, 09:36 PM
well, by that logic wont the 16610 be the 1680?

i mean, they are all nice watches..i would base it on my own preferences rather than future collectible value - there are way too many 16610's and 14060's for either to be collectible in my mind.

______________________________________________

Well he got that right didn't he ..... !! Rgds Paul

I guess that's true, and I can remember when people said the same about 5513s.

[doyall]

Originally Posted by Ale93am

Can you post a pics? Thanks

Before and after: (Had to re-size down - may have to blow-up for detail. Bezel still has some residual scratches.)


watch face 2 resize.jpg

Rolex post service resize.jpg

But seriously, yours does not look bad compared to how mine was. It was a daily wearer for 15+ years.

[doyall]

Originally Posted by Dan S

... By the way, this is not a vintage watch IMO. ...

Some call 30YO watches neo-vintage. Does that count?

[andrewjb88]

I have a 16203, it was my dads, I keep thinking to get it polished as it is quite scratched but at the same time, my dad made most of the scratches so I decided against getting it done.

If you have just bought the watch and it has no sentimental value, polish it.

[crowncollection]

Why not if you like the new watch look


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fahoo Forays]

Originally Posted by doyall

Some call 30YO watches neo-vintage. Does that count?

Some do, but I would not. "Neo-vintage" is a silly term, adjacent to an even sillier concept.

As an owner of an almost 30 year-old Rolex, I have the best combo of case and lug shape, crystal material and link composition (not the end links, they're still hollow, if that matters). Best of all, I didn't have to enter an AD to get it. It does not need additional approval from a curator. lol

[PandaC]

looking good to me though

[watchluvr4ever]

Don’t look too bad to me, just some honest wear…gives it some character.