When did Rolex make the first switch from 304L to 316L steel? Was it the 1016?

[powerfunk]

Many Rolex collectors know about the timelines for the switch from 316L to the 904L currently used today. But it seems like the switch from 304L to 316L wasn't talked about much. Was it the 1960's when Rolex introduced 316L?

I was wondering if perhaps the 1016 was the first model to use 316L, because the 1972 catalog describes it as an "especially tough stainless steel case." What could possibly make it more "tough" than the other Oyster cases? Was it 100% marketing, the switch to 316L, or something else that I'm missing?

[L.K Johnson]

Also interested to know this!

[ROGERB]

Also refer to Sub and Sub date as having "special" stainless steel?

Hmmm
R

[douglasf13]

I think the "special stainless steel case" could mean the switch to 316L from 304L. You'll notice the Tudor Snowflake doesn't say that in its description, and Tudor Subs tend to be a generation behind Rolex Subs in getting new tech. The GMT, which obviously isn't a dive watch, also doesn't have that moniker.

We do have evidence that the 1019 Milgauss was 304L, at some point:

[powerfunk]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I think the "special stainless steel case" could mean the switch to 316L from 304L. You'll notice the Tudor Snowflake doesn't say that in its description, and Tudor Subs tend to be a generation behind Rolex Subs in getting new tech. The GMT, which obviously isn't a dive watch, also doesn't have that moniker.

We do have evidence that the 1019 Milgauss was 304L, at some point:

Ah, that's helpful. I was entirely missing 304L.

[Filipão]

With the 168000 (added zero means 904L) so 1984/'85ish

Edited:

More intel below

https://www.keepthetime.com/blog/316...el-in-watches/