ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

mc1010 · 12 December 2010, 11:06 PM

I originally posted this on the WatchOut section but I think this is a more appropriate place to ask this. I got one response before from Michael (who was a great help) but still was hoping to get some more feedback on it.

I'm really thinking of getting this red sub. I'm not an expert so I have no clue if what the seller is offering is authentic. But I really love the look of the 1680 and this particular watch seems to be in very good shape for a 40 year old watch. Just need help from people here in the forum if you guys think it's the real deal, if it is indeed "virgin untouched condition," and if the price is right. The seller wants US$8,800 for it. Thanks in advance.

Pictures and description are from the seller (in another watch forum).

Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date
Model reference #: 1680
Year manufactured: III 1969
1570 caliber non hacking movement
Beveled acrylic crystal
Complete 9513 links
"Virgin untouched condition"
No box and papers
Meet up at Rolex Service Center for mutual protection

HL65 · 12 December 2010, 11:18 PM

That is the market rate for a feet first sub. The only thing is I can't see if the 6's are open. The first feet first red sub was the Mark 4 dial--that would be 2.45mm plus and this is a 2.3mm which should be a Mark 2 or 3-which meters fist.

Damage Inc. · 13 December 2010, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelerFan1965

That is the market rate for a feet first sub. The only thing is I can't see if the 6's are open. The first feet first red sub was the Mark 4 dial--that would be 2.45mm plus and this is a 2.3mm which should be a Mark 2 or 3-which meters fist.

That's exactly what my first reaction was...shouldn't this be a meters first?
Generally it can be pretty hard to draw a 'bright line' with things Rolex, but serial numbers in this range are generally accepted as late meters first.

Hmmmmmm...

dsio · 13 December 2010, 03:02 AM

If I was buying one of those I'd be pretty insistent on the original top-hat crystal over the beveled service crystal, I know its a consumable part but its not "virgin untouched" if its not the original type.

Rickster · 13 December 2010, 06:31 AM

The price does sound about right for a feet first 1680. I will agree with the others and say that it should be a meters first dial.

HL65 · 13 December 2010, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

If I was buying one of those I'd be pretty insistent on the original top-hat crystal over the beveled service crystal, I know its a consumable part but its not "virgin untouched" if its not the original type.

You can always get a period correct crystal---I would be more concerned with a non correct dial myself as that makes or breaks the watch to me.

Racer X · 13 December 2010, 09:57 AM

As others have said, this should be a meters first watch, not feet first. This may mean that the dial or case was switched out, which would really reduce the value. I would pass on this one -- they are rare, but not nearly as hard to find as meters first.

mike · 13 December 2010, 10:01 AM

I can't add anything. Nothing with Rolex is set in stone, but I would also tend to think that range is late meters first.

mc1010 · 13 December 2010, 04:33 PM

Thanks a lot guys. Will just pass on this one.

12 December 2010, 11:18 PM	#2
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,991	That is the market rate for a feet first sub. The only thing is I can't see if the 6's are open. The first feet first red sub was the Mark 4 dial--that would be 2.45mm plus and this is a 2.3mm which should be a Mark 2 or 3-which meters fist. __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

13 December 2010, 03:02 AM	#4
dsio "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Real Name: Ashley Location: Brisbane Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79 Posts: 2,301	If I was buying one of those I'd be pretty insistent on the original top-hat crystal over the beveled service crystal, I know its a consumable part but its not "virgin untouched" if its not the original type. __________________ -- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 -- -- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 -- -- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 -- -- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 -- -- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 --

13 December 2010, 06:31 AM	#5
Rickster "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Rick Location: London, Ont. Posts: 666	The price does sound about right for a feet first 1680. I will agree with the others and say that it should be a meters first dial.

13 December 2010, 09:57 AM	#7
Racer X "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: Dave Location: Unknown Posts: 999	As others have said, this should be a meters first watch, not feet first. This may mean that the dial or case was switched out, which would really reduce the value. I would pass on this one -- they are rare, but not nearly as hard to find as meters first.

13 December 2010, 10:01 AM	#8
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	I can't add anything. Nothing with Rolex is set in stone, but I would also tend to think that range is late meters first.

13 December 2010, 04:33 PM	#9
mc1010 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Real Name: Mark Location: * Posts: 240	Thanks a lot guys. Will just pass on this one.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)