Submariner 16610LV – Dial Picture Request – Part II

[shou.biao.kuang]

Originally Posted by XZACM102

Interesting thread, mine LV is M556xxx. I bought in in Switzerland in 2008.
Is this Mark V ?

Hi,

Welcome to the LV Kermit club

Yes, this seems to be the Mark V dial from the pic. Mark IV and Mark V closely resemble each other with only very minor differences.


Hope this helps

[louie]

Originally Posted by LA_LEC

You might be over-thinking this...just saying.

well, i used to think it was collectible too after much research about it and not been really the true 50th anniversary set i eventually sold it..

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree about over-thinking and getting a small proportion of what seen on the internet forums bares no reality to all the LVs sold in the world over the years.

i remembered your words Padi, which i agreed upon. Just too many of this kermits. After seeing some had faded bezels makes me regretted selling mine some years ago...

[shou.biao.kuang]

Originally Posted by louie

well, i used to think it was collectible too after much research about it and not been really the true 50th anniversary set i eventually sold it..

i remembered your words Padi, which i agreed upon. Just too many of this kermits. After seeing some had faded bezels makes me regretted selling mine some years ago...

To each his own, pal...

And only time will tell if the Kermit will be one of the ultimate collector's watches... In the meantime, I guess all who have one piece will hope them to be collectible in the future

[Johny]

some of the later g and random serials had the a/r Cyclops crystal fitted as standard.

[shou.biao.kuang]

Originally Posted by Johny

some of the later g and random serials had the a/r Cyclops crystal fitted as standard.

Yes mate, you are right on this

[larry88]

Interesting thread. Questions:

1. Mk 2 - it extends to some Ms or all of M?
2. I have a F93XX, pointed 4, with swiss made covering 3 ticks. R in OYSTER is underneath the right foot of Rolex. The dial seems to be a mk 4 spec and is within the mark 4 range - according to another informal guide in VRF. However if it's mk 4 (according to that guide), then the insert should be flat 4 (and not pointed 4). The only reason i can think of of that mine should be a mk 3 (pointed 4, 3 ticks, R on Right) and that the case number range is not completely correct.

Thought?

[shou.biao.kuang]

Originally Posted by larry88

Interesting thread. Questions:

1. Mk 2 - it extends to some Ms or all of M?
2. I have a F93XX, pointed 4, with swiss made covering 3 ticks. R in OYSTER is underneath the right foot of Rolex. The dial seems to be a mk 4 spec and is within the mark 4 range - according to another informal guide in VRF. However if it's mk 4 (according to that guide), then the insert should be flat 4 (and not pointed 4). The only reason i can think of of that mine should be a mk 3 (pointed 4, 3 ticks, R on Right) and that the case number range is not completely correct.

Thought?

Hi Larry,

For the dial variant of 16610LV, it depends on which guide you are on. If you are referring to JBP's blog on VRF, then there will be more variants than Guido Mondani's reference in his book.

What JBP did was he lumped the dial variance together with the inserts and named them by the different marks whereas Guido Mondani's based his marking on the dial variance alone. No right or wrong, just different ways of presenting the dial variants.

[shou.biao.kuang]

Originally Posted by larry88

Interesting thread. Questions:

1. Mk 2 - it extends to some Ms or all of M?
2. I have a F93XX, pointed 4, with swiss made covering 3 ticks. R in OYSTER is underneath the right foot of Rolex. The dial seems to be a mk 4 spec and is within the mark 4 range - according to another informal guide in VRF. However if it's mk 4 (according to that guide), then the insert should be flat 4 (and not pointed 4). The only reason i can think of of that mine should be a mk 3 (pointed 4, 3 ticks, R on Right) and that the case number range is not completely correct.

Thought?

Oh.. forgot to add my comment on your dial. From your description, your dial seems to be a MK II dial (based on Guido's), the only dial variant that had the "R in OYSTER is underneath the right foot of Rolex." If so, you set seems to be correct for that period

A picture here would be great to confirm this

[larry88]

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[larry88]

Hi. See attached

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[shou.biao.kuang]

Hi Larry,

Absolutely positive this is a MK II dial.

And it appears correct for "F"s of this range. By Mid "F"s, the "Flat 4" gave way to the "Sharp 4", including the MK I dial, which appears to give way to MK II closer to end of "F"s.

[forgedblades]

I'm new to this watch and purchased this one a few months ago. I know from papers and the case it is a D serial number 2004 production and sold early in 2005 to the person I purchased it from. Trying to read and learn as much as I can but tough starting out as terms are not know on my end yet. Posting picture hoping you can tell me more info etc about the watch.
Thanks

[shou.biao.kuang]

Nice piece Dave. A MK 3 with Sharp 4 insert. Definitely within your serial's range