Datejust 36mm, yes, but which one?

[lenversducadran]

Hi everyone,

In order to celebrate one event in my life, I am currently thinking of going for the first time into the vintage world, particularly willing to buy one Datejust 36.

Now, what I am looking for exactly is a "very simple" Datejust 36, not two tone, rather with a white or silver dial (with "baton" index) and a jubilee bracelet.

So far it looks pretty simple but what I wanted to know is your feedback on the various different references out there (e.g. 160xx series are better than the 162xx serie). I want to know if there are specific references to avoid (with old movements or components which would differ from one reference to the other). The idea is to use that watch on a daily basis.

I am asking that question mainly because I've heard so many times here & there of "don't buy" the 4 numbers reference but a 5 one etc... and what I wanted to have is a simple and honest feedback from our fellow DJ amateurs :)

Therefore, I would be happy to hear about your feedbacks or recommendations ?

[Dan S]

If you want vintage, I think a 16000/16014/16030 would be a good choice, depending on your bezel preference. The acrylic crystal gives it a legit vintage feel, but the movement has a quick-set date and parts are more readily available than for the earlier 4-digit DJ models.

Personally, I prefer the look of the 4-digit DJ dials, but for someone making their first foray into vintage, I think the 5-digit might be more practical.

The 162XX DJ series does not really feel vintage to me.

[TuRo]

Yes agree with Dan. - Those are perhaps the 'goldilocks' DJ's

Personally, I also like the even older 60/70s (but no quick set if that matters to you), 1601/1603 in a monochrome silver dial with alpha hands and a if possible simple (no polished centre links) period folded Link 5251h bracelet - it also is the bonus of being the cheapest DJ ...circa from £3500 with bracelet in-situ !!

This one from member EWAND here is v .nice and minimalist/classy.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=913165

[Toronto Soup King]

The 160x are nice because of the pie-pan dials, that and acrylic. But they have no QS. OTOH you have 160xx with QS but the dials are flat. I ended up with a 1601, myself, I really do like the pie-pan. But setting it is a PITA

[lenversducadran]

Originally Posted by Dan S

If you want vintage, I think a 16000/16014/16030 would be a good choice, depending on your bezel preference. The acrylic crystal gives it a legit vintage feel, but the movement has a quick-set date and parts are more readily available than for the earlier 4-digit DJ models.

Personally, I prefer the look of the 4-digit DJ dials, but for someone making their first foray into vintage, I think the 5-digit might be more practical.

The 162XX DJ series does not really feel vintage to me.

Thanks a lot for your feedback. I had a look at those ref. and I think you are right. My concern with the 4 digit DJ is the fact that if I am a bit scared with regards to revision & cost. I would think the price would be significantly higher than a 5 digit, or am I wrong?

[lenversducadran]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Yes agree with Dan. - Those are perhaps the 'goldilocks' DJ's

Personally, I also like the even older 60/70s (but no quick set if that matters to you), 1601/1603 in a monochrome silver dial with alpha hands and a if possible simple (no polished centre links) period folded Link 5251h bracelet - it also is the bonus of being the cheapest DJ ...circa from £3500 with bracelet in-situ !!

This one from member EWAND here is v .nice and minimalist/classy.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=913165

Looks very cool indeed, the hands are quite unique but I believe I prefer the "Normal ones". The price on the other hand is quite low.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by lenversducadran

Thanks a lot for your feedback. I had a look at those ref. and I think you are right. My concern with the 4 digit DJ is the fact that if I am a bit scared with regards to revision & cost. I would think the price would be significantly higher than a 5 digit, or am I wrong?

Price of the watch and cost of service isn't too different between 4- and 5-digit DJs in my experience. In fact, sometimes the 5-digit DJs can be a little more expensive; they are popular for some of the reasons discussed above. And as for service, if you have a watchmaker who is comfortable servicing 4-digit pieces, then I don't think he's going to charge you any more than for a 5-digit piece.

However, there are some differences. Rolex will still service 5-digit DJs without question, and most parts are still available to independent watchmakers with Rolex parts accounts. The same can't necessarily be said about 4-digit DJ movements. More and more, you will find the RSC refusing to service 4-digit watches, and ADs and independent watchmakers balking at servicing 4-digit Rolex in general, because they don't want to deal with finding parts if they are necessary. And from what I have seen, some of the well-known independent watchmakers who specialize in vintage Rolex do seem to charge pretty high prices, at least by my standards.

So in the long run, it's true that you may end up paying more to repair and service older models. Personally, that would not be my primary consideration, however, because I love older watches and I feel that repairs and service are the price that goes along with having watches that give me joy.

[ancientmariner]

Here’s my 1603 from 1966. My first Rolex and very happy with it. As others have said it does not have the QS date so you need to decide how important that is to you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zapokee]

Got to be a 160x for me. Those pie-pan dials are superb . I enjoy the flat dial of the five-digit models less.

I have a 1600 with the smooth bezel. The fluted bezel is a bit too flamboyant to my eye.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by zapokee

Got to be a 160x for me. Those pie-pan dials are superb . I enjoy the flat dial of the five-digit models less.

I have a 1600 with the smooth bezel. The fluted bezel is a bit too flamboyant to my eye.

I also like the engine-turned bezels.

[Dan S]

5-digit versions for comparison.

[lenversducadran]

Originally Posted by Dan S

5-digit versions for comparison.

Looks incredible! Mint condition.

One more question with regards to polish, how do you spot concretely when it's "too much" polished ?

[lenversducadran]

Originally Posted by ancientmariner

Here’s my 1603 from 1966. My first Rolex and very happy with it. As others have said it does not have the QS date so you need to decide how important that is to you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I will probably have a look into this but QS looks actually something I would prefer. Let's see :)

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by lenversducadran

Looks incredible! Mint condition.

One more question with regards to polish, how do you spot concretely when it's "too much" polished ?

With experience, you can recognize the correct thickness of the lugs. You also want to look for cratering of the lug holes, that's pretty easy to recognize.

[Boopie]

I’d look around on a site like Chrono24, which has a lot of DJ, to see what you like.

I went for a circa 2003 16200; it’s modern and robust enough to wear daily (including water sports) and doesn’t have the PCLs. The last of the 5-digit DJs are plentiful and a relative bargain, as they aren’t as collectible, I think, because they aren’t quite considered “vintage.” I see it more as a modern used watch than a “vintage” watch; this underscores how robust a Rolex is when a 20-year old watch still seems new.

I bought a Tudor Sub (ladies’ snowflake, circa 1978) that has the older Rolex bracelet, acrylic crystal, etc. While it was, no doubt, very robust when new, I’m always aware I’m wearing a vintage watch, and treat it a bit more delicately than one of my modern watches. I don’t presume that it’s waterproof. I wear it as a vintage watch for effect (eg when I’m at a car show with my classic car).