Help requested regarding a 16013 that doesn't seem to add up.

[Treozen]

Hello folks.

What I know about Rolex, could fit in a thimble for people with abnormally small hands, but I'm trying to learn so that I can feel good about my first Rolex purchase. I'm building a short list of watches that I'm interested in, but one of them is confusing me, and I thought perhaps you could help.

Here's what we're dealing with:

- Ref 16013, Datejust
- 3035 Movement
- Serial Dates to 1979 (had owner double check).
- SS case, acrylic crystal.

Sounds normal so far, right? BUT THEN [dramatic music]

- Has a pie-pan dial (which I prefer) but my research tells me pie-pan dials stopped with the prior generation 1601. My reading suggests ALL ref 16013 have flat dials

- Owner says the watch is a non-quickset movement, but if that's so, how can it be a 3035? Again reading suggests all 3035 movements are quickset

- Dial has the sigma indicators next to the "T SWISS T", but I've read that the sigma logos / sigma dials were only seen from say 1970 to 1976 - 1977. There wouldn't be a sigma dial for 1979.

SO - my first thought, if we take all of the above as accurate, is that we have the dial and movement from an earlier 1601, placed into the case from a 16013. I'm just not sure why anyone would do that? I guess if you somehow trashed your 1601 case and had an empty 16013 laying around?

My second thought, was perhaps this actually ok. For example, maybe there is some parts cross-over toward the end of the 1601 run. Could it be Rolex was using up the parts bin as late as 1979?

So I'd be interested in your feedback and thoughts, both in terms of what's going on here, but also on whether it matters - i.e. how is this sort of parts interchange viewed from a value perspective? I sort of look at this as you might a classic car - you can install a different engine, and it may run and look great, but its also no longer "matching numbers" and depending on the car, that can be a very big deal in terms of value.

I like the watch, but if its cobbled together, I think I'm less interested.

Thanks,
Allan.

[Dan S]

You are obviously not getting accurate information from the seller. It could be totally innocent on his part, but posting the bogus second-hand information isn't helpful. Post plenty of good photos, including the numbers between the lugs, photos of the movement, inside the case-back, etc.

[carwashchris]

Something isn't right , but like Dan said we need some good photos to help you figure this out.

[Treozen]

Originally Posted by carwashchris

Something isn't right , but like Dan said we need some good photos to help you figure this out.

Originally Posted by Dan S

You are obviously not getting accurate information from the seller. It could be totally innocent on his part, but posting the bogus second-hand information isn't helpful. Post plenty of good photos, including the numbers between the lugs, photos of the movement, inside the case-back, etc.

Thanks for the replies guys, and I recognize that pictures would be helpful, but I'm not able to post any at present - I can't actually created a thread without it being moderated first - I imagine there is a certain number of posts that will remove those restrictions, but whatever it is, I don't have it yet! lol

As for the data, I'm certainly not suggesting the seller is being nefarious, and as for the accuracy - I asked him to specifically verify the serial and reference number.

Perhaps I'll see if he'll take the back off and get pictures of that, then maybe update this post when I can throw on a few pictures.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Treozen

Thanks for the replies guys, and I recognize that pictures would be helpful, but I'm not able to post any at present - I can't actually created a thread without it being moderated first - I imagine there is a certain number of posts that will remove those restrictions, but whatever it is, I don't have it yet! lol

As for the data, I'm certainly not suggesting the seller is being nefarious, and as for the accuracy - I asked him to specifically verify the serial and reference number.

Perhaps I'll see if he'll take the back off and get pictures of that, then maybe update this post when I can throw on a few pictures.

You can post photos at any time. Just size them correctly and use the manage attachments button below the text window. There is no way to figure out what's going on without photos. When some of the information is obviously wrong, e.g. the movement, I tend to just ignore the rest, since the person giving you the information obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

Or, if you believe that you are getting accurate information from the seller, then just walk away and don't waste any more time, since the watch is frankenized from top to bottom, including the bridges on the movement.

[Treozen]

Originally Posted by Dan S

....including the bridges on the movement....

I'm just going to nod as though I understand why that's important.

I've asked for more pictures of the movement itself and numbers between the lugs - If I get them, I'll post them here for review.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by Treozen

I'm just going to nod as though I understand why that's important.

I've asked for more pictures of the movement itself and numbers between the lugs - If I get them, I'll post them here for review.

First of all, good for you doing research on your first purchase and a lot of it. Learning in the chase is half the fun.

Second of all, you’re getting a mixed up story and whether it’s innocent or nefarious, MoveOn. This is a common watch, there’s a lot of really cool examples out there, get a full set box and papers from a righteous seller on this form and you will love it for many years. Don’t buy from a clown and don’t buy a cobble together franken watch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

...This is a common watch, there’s a lot of really cool examples out there, get a full set box and papers from a righteous seller on this form and you will love it for many years. Don’t buy from a clown and don’t buy a cobble together franken watch

This. There's no way a pie-pan dial belongs on a 16013 for a start, which makes any further investigation redundant. Move along.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Treozen

I'm just going to nod as though I understand why that's important.

The only way a movement marked 3035 would be non-quickset, would be if it's not actually a 3035 movement. But honestly, I don't think that's likely the case. I just think the seller doesn't know what he's talking about, so we have no information to work with. This happens all the time. Maybe the movement does have a quickset date, but the seller doesn't know how it works. Or more likely it's actually a 1601 with a cal 1570, and the seller just thinks it's a 16013 with a cal 3035.

[Treozen]

Originally Posted by zapokee

This. There's no way a pie-pan dial belongs on a 16013 for a start, which makes any further investigation redundant. Move along.

Well, I got pictures of the case numbers, and they confirm the serial, year ('79) and ref# (16013). The seller doesn't have the tool to take the back off, so he say's he'll go to a watch smith and have them look at it, and get back to me.

So for now, I guess it's off the list. I can't imagine a way that it turns out to be correct - given the dial and lack of quickset, but maybe its a super rare custom-ordered Rolex that was owned by someone famous......

[TuRo]

This ��agree tbh it's a 1601 or 1603 with pilot error on description most likely !

[Treozen]

So to close this out:

- The movement turned out to be a 1570
- Case was a 16013
- Case back was from a 16000

I felt really bad for the owner, he sounded legitimately gutted. My guess is the dial and movement belong together - they are of the same vintage, so its the case and back that was changed for reasons unknown.

Regretfully, I'll be scratching this one off the list - its a nice looking watch that checked several boxes, but the big one "authentic and original" - not so much.

In some ways its a shame the parts for these watches cost so much, because the challenge of buying this poor mixed up thing and trying to put it right - at least so that all its parts would be vintage-correct within a period of 1970 - 1976ish, was for a brief moment, intriguing. BUT....then I decided perhaps I should own a Rolex, before I decide to become a watch-smith.

[Dan S]

Just as an FYI, it's not unusual to find a 16000 case-back with a 16013. That part is probably ok. But overall, I agree that someone re-cased the movement and dial from a 4-digit DJ into a 5-digit case.

Unfortunate that the owner tired of it. If he had never tried to sell it, he might have enjoyed the watch indefinitely in blissful ignorance. Like many owners, he is not knowledgable, which led to his false claim that the movement was a 3035, presumably just because the case said 16013 and he googled the movement caliber. This is why we always need to make our own observations. Second-hand info is often worthless.

[HunterST]

The case back could be fine. However, somewhere sometime someone played Frankenstein with this piece. Giving the seller the benefit of the doubt, he may have thought it had a 3035 because is what it should have. Hopefully nothing nefarious about it, but definitely move on as the wise guys from this forum have already told you.

In my experience, there are a few things that could be swapped on 16013 / 4’s that are acceptable. For example, I have a 16013 that at some point before I bought it 25 years ago had the yellow gold bezel, hands, crown swapped out for correct stainless / white gold parts. Never bothered me one bit. This likely happened as the TT variant had low resale value compared to the SS / White gold. You will definitely find a 16013 with a little patience and the help of the forum.