16800 help

[jeffkirkish]

I am looking to trade one of my 7928's for this 16800. Does this look real to all of you. Or should I steer clear. Thanks
JEFF

[Watch Collector]

That looks like a fake to me!!

[2careless]

Originally Posted by Watch Collector

That looks like a fake to me!!

and the reasons are?

[Lol-x]

The depth of the serrations in the bezel indicate characteristically to me like an aftermarket bezel has been used.
The tips of the crown guards look uneven in width, which may indicate some excess polishing on the 2O'Clock area of the case.
I would take into account the lack of an oyster bracelet is = to a reduction in value of maybe $800 off the price otherwise payable.
Looks like a small ding in the caseback.
Otherwise it looks O.K. to me
I think the movement is a 3035 which is considered to be technically a little less desirable than the 3135.
The length of the minute hand maybe an issue, it looks quite short

But don't rely on what I say, I might be totally wrong.
Good Luck

[2careless]

The case serial says 8,3xx,xxx, i.e. around 1983/84 so this looks like an early 16800. I thought the WG surrounding dial markers were introduced much later in the 90s? So could this be a replacement service dial? and yet it said SWISS-T<25, not T SWISS T?
Concur the minute hand looks short. Also, the lug holes look too big.

[rocco1109]

The white gold surrounds were introduced roughly with the 8.4million serial number.

So this watch at 8.3million COULD have come with this dial originally. As with all things Rolex, there are no absolute cut-off or start dates.

Swiss - T < 25 is correct on the dial, not T Swiss T. The 16800 never had T Swiss T on the dial.

Make sure you blast the dial/hands with a flashlight to see if there's any luminova.

The bezel pearl appears to be tritium, as evidenced by the brownish tint.

The spring bars are incorrect.

If the price is right, it could be a good buy. You could find a matte dial for it at some point and significantly increase it's value.

Here is my 16800 matte (on the right) with my 168000

[SLS]

Originally Posted by rocco1109

The white gold surrounds were introduced roughly with the 8.4million serial number.

So this watch at 8.3million COULD have come with this dial originally. As with all things Rolex, there are no absolute cut-off or start dates.

Swiss - T < 25 is correct on the dial, not T Swiss T. The 16800 never had T Swiss T on the dial.

Make sure you blast the dial/hands with a flashlight to see if there's any luminova.

The bezel pearl appears to be tritium, as evidenced by the brownish tint.

The spring bars are incorrect.

If the price is right, it could be a good buy. You could find a matte dial for it at some point and significantly increase it's value.

Here is my 16800 matte (on the right) with my 168000

x2
To elaborate on Rocco's post, the springbars are shouldered which are used on the no lug holes cases.
~Scott

[johnsonwj]

Look at the number "8" in the serial number on the lug. It looks irregular, taller than the rest of the numbers. Have them take off the case back to check the movement.

[springer]

Originally Posted by rocco1109

The white gold surrounds were introduced roughly with the 8.4million serial number.

So this watch at 8.3million COULD have come with this dial originally. As with all things Rolex, there are no absolute cut-off or start dates.

Swiss - T < 25 is correct on the dial, not T Swiss T. The 16800 never had T Swiss T on the dial.

Make sure you blast the dial/hands with a flashlight to see if there's any luminova.

The bezel pearl appears to be tritium, as evidenced by the brownish tint.

The spring bars are incorrect.

If the price is right, it could be a good buy. You could find a matte dial for it at some point and significantly increase it's value.

Here is my 16800 matte (on the right) with my 168000

Rocco summed it up fairly well. The watch appears genuine with genuine parts. The dial is original and correct for the watch. The case appears as if it has been polished excessively from viewing the photos.

[CKay]

Man, bring it to have it certified original before paying for it. The watch looks like it has been severely polished. Any pictures on the movement?

[GBJIV]

Dang, you guys are good!

[mike]

Rocco's nailed it. Especially about the dial/serial number combination. I would only add to check the dial for spider webbing as this was something that occured on mid 80s gloss dials (though from the pic I can't see any).

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by GBJIV

Dang, you guys are good!

GB is right... where were you guys when I got married? I could have put up my (now ex) wife's pic and stats and you could have told me to run away!!!!

[stevemulholland3]

YOU GUYS ARE BECOMING PARANOID!!
that watch looks fine......a little beat up but fine.
I wouldnt trade it for for your tudor though.

[mickeydainish]

.... good info guys... :-)

[Orchi]

Err buddies...the 16800 looks alright...minus whatever have been mentioned about the watch by others...

Orchi for one would not go for it...when it has no bracelet to fit...

When Orchi looks at one of the lugs at 12 o'clock position...which looks to be just slightly bent inwards(also looks thinner)...that may or may not render slight difficulty to fit the correct endlink 593 to it subsequently that should come with 93150 oyster bracelet.



Nevertheless...the watch has the potential for Matte Dial replacement...which would be more appealing to more collectors...

Oh btw...the Dial/Hands look to be correct...the re-polishing was done to the case especially heavier to the one side of the crown guards...n also one of the lug holes looks to be abnormally bigger...

Hopes that helps...

[porsche911]

Looks like the 4 on 40 is out of sorts. The tritium is over full looking to me. I have the 16800 with the gloss dial and surrounds and no clops. Mine is the 83500xx. Good looking watch.

[veefour]

Numbers font on bezel insert looks thick compared with mine.