Which is more likely to appreciate, 1655 or 1665?

[russellnyc]

Sorry to be THAT guy. Considering liquidating some Rolexes to make room for another purchase and am wondering which is the better one to hold, the Great White or the Freccione. Anyone want to guess at the future and provide justification?

Or will they both be the bubblebacks of the next decade (i.e. hot now, cool later)?

Sorry in advance!

[joe100]

I hate when I misplace my crystal ball

[springer]

Flip a coin!

[jdmi32]

First off, nice duo you've got there! I'm horrible at predicting price trends but if I had to guess, I'd go with the 1655. Reasons being it's the very first of its kind and it looks like no other Rolex made before or after. Even though the Exp II is not particularly rare, from my experience finding one that's not gone through a bad polish is no small feat.

My 1655 and 1665...

[russellnyc]

Originally Posted by jdmi32

First off, nice duo you've got there! I'm horrible at predicting price trends but if I had to guess, I'd go with the 1655. Reasons being it's the very first of its kind and it looks like no other Rolex made before or after. Even though the Exp II is not particularly rare, from my experience finding one that's not gone through a bad polish is no small feat.



My 1655 and 1665...

Thanks for the non smarmy answer! I think your reasoning is good. Hopefully I will keep both, but if it comes down to it, good to get some intelligent input. Thank you!

And wow, beautiful pieces! Love them both (obviously).

[wallasey runner]

I would agree, the 1665 is a mark 1 dial and looks a stunner, no guarantees, but the trend recently has been for the prices to rise on these as they were only made for a 5 year or so period, approx 1978 to 1983 and therefore less and less good examples are coming to market. Supply and demand pushing the price up.
Keeping both is sensible, let the later Sea-dweller or Sub go if necessary.

[Vincent65]

I would say they're about even to collectors, but, historically, the Subs/Sea-Dwellers were obviously more universally appealing, and I'd venture there's some general residual sentiment in that direction, so I'd go with the 1665 as being less 'specialist' and a better bet, overall.

[rootbeer7]

Here in the UK the prices of 1655 seem to have softened. My dealer's view is that so many are a mixture of dials and bezels, that unless you are real wis it's difficult to find a true original. 1665's seem to be a bit more simple.

[Wing Zero]

I have an affinity to divers so.. 1665 for me.

[Cortezthekiller]

I woulld rather own the Exp II, but there seems far more interest in the SD. If only there was a red 1655!

[subtona]

I think the SD has a broader appeal, so will be easier to move if the time comes.

[russellnyc]

Thanks again all, great discussion. Didn't realize this was a MkI dial — I think my exp may be a later one, so hat may not be true...

[jdmi32]

Originally Posted by russellnyc

Thanks again all, great discussion. Didn't realize this was a MkI dial — I think my exp may be a later one, so hat may not be true...

Neither of your dials are MKI's. They both look like MK4's to me.

[Karbo]

1665 is the ultimate watch for me....

[Wristmaster]

Amazing collection

[wallasey runner]

Originally Posted by jdmi32

Neither of your dials are MKI's. They both look like MK4's to me.

Sorry, in the case of the 1665 you are wrong - see the attached:

http://www.doubleredseadweller.com/w...eadweller.html

Cannot speak for the other watch, don't know much about them.

[fusionstorm]

I'd liquidate the Datejust in a heartbeat, and the 1680 Sub a bit more reluctantly. But would def keep the 1655 & 1665.

Planning to get some more vintage goodness?

[jdmi32]

Originally Posted by wallasey runner

Sorry, in the case of the 1665 you are wrong - see the attached:

http://www.doubleredseadweller.com/w...eadweller.html

Cannot speak for the other watch, don't know much about them.

An easy tell for the MK1 dial is the "ft = 610m", while the later dials will have "ft = 610m". Also, the crowns are different.

My MK1 1665.

[wallasey runner]

Originally Posted by jdmi32

An easy tell for the MK1 dial is the "ft = 610m", while the later dials will have "ft = 610m". Also, the crowns are different.

My MK1 1665.

I stand corrected - purely because i had looked at your watch in an early post rather than the OP picture in the first post.

At least we agree what a mark 1 looks like, but i don't think there is any huge difference in value unless you have a mark 2 rail dial.

The values of DRSD dials is considerably different - esp. across marks 1 to 3 compared to later dials.

[jdmi32]

Originally Posted by wallasey runner

I stand corrected - purely because i had looked at your watch in an early post rather than the OP picture in the first post.

At least we agree what a mark 1 looks like, but i don't think there is any huge difference in value unless you have a mark 2 rail dial.

The values of DRSD dials is considerably different - esp. across marks 1 to 3 compared to later dials.

Agreed in that there is no premium between the Great White dials save for the rail.

[strafer_kid]

Personally I would hold onto both no,matter what. Two beautiful watches you have there!

[kelvin0978]

Vote for 1665

[wallasey runner]

Wow kelvin0978 that is some dark patina on your mark 4 DRSD - opposite end of the spectrum to my mark 3.

[Frogman4me]

No one really knows and there are seasons of dryness for each model. But overall if I were to guess I would say the 1665 because there will always be a larger audience/market for the seadweller, even though it has to compete with the submariner. I think for most people when they think of Rolex, the explorer does not come to mind first. But one could argue because there are less its more valuable and I would understand that logic but for me the demand has to be strong for it to increase in value no matter how rare the reference might be.

[AS1]

Such a tough one. I agree with the comments that the SD is more in the style of the iconic Rolex pieces and, as such, will likely always be a solid bet (assuming vintage Rolex is itself a sought-after commodity in future... we can all hope so, but who knows). That said, the sheer weirdness of the 1655 could also strongly count in its favor, as it does now. But we are all speculating on matters to which, to be frank, we have no real idea...

[scooba]

Originally Posted by wallasey runner

Wow kelvin0978 that is some dark patina on your mark 4 DRSD - opposite end of the spectrum to my mark 3.

Love this DRSD, The white plots are stunning

[bigsmall]

I would keep both and sell all others, going then for a 1675.

But deciding between 1655 and 1665, I'd go with the 1665. Because I am in love with her.

[judson]

You all have stunning watches. Thank you for posting.

[subx]

1665 has a wider audience support base, so should increase with stability.
1655 is so unique that is may be more subject to trends/fashions and that can either make it increase quicker OR decrease chronically.

that said, I am in complete lust over my 1655, absolutely mesmerizing watch to me, and stands out like crazy in a 'sea' of subs and sds.

[psv]

The market for 1665's is very soft at the moment. People have to drop prices and even trusted sellers have Sea-Dwellers sitting for quite some time. I honestly don't know why.

In my observations, the 1655 have done better price-wise during the last couple of years.

Now who knows about the future?