ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

boring_sandwich · 17 September 2016, 04:57 PM

Hi,

I happened to notice this 1680 at a dealer, before I go and take a look at it does everything appear ok. I know very little about vintage as it is a mind field. Does the dial, hands etc appear original to the watch.

Any information or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Link to the selling UK dealer below.

https://www.austinkaye.co.uk/vintage...petual-0?back=

Thanks

traf · 17 September 2016, 08:40 PM

Looks like a nice mk1 dial. Seems like a lot of £££ though

Sent from my  iPhone 7 using Tapatalk

sfc rick · 17 September 2016, 08:44 PM

Looks fine....but I'm no expert, nor do I play one on the TV. It's been serviced and I can see the crystal is a service replacement by the beveled edge you can see in the photo. The dial may be a service dial as well as the hands. The dial is not like my service dial in that the "L" is not slightly to the left of the Crown logo and I don't see open "6"s in the meter rating. The hands are identical to my service hands. Look at my service dial and see what I'm saying. On another note I've been told by the Rolex dealer here, that the bezel is also a replacement service bezel by the fat "40" font.

boring_sandwich · 18 September 2016, 01:32 AM

I had a look at it, however I have decided against it as Im not keen on the size/thickness of the plexi. They do have a lovely 5513 in the shop though although seems expensive at £6750.

https://www.austinkaye.co.uk/vintage...tch-rare?back=

J!m · 18 September 2016, 05:28 AM

That's a mk I dial, not service dial. The blunt triangle at noon...

From the one photo it has seen service. I guess it depends on if you want "all genuine" or "all original". It appears all genuine, but not all original.

AgentHsu · 18 September 2016, 07:50 AM

That clasp would bother me

traf · 18 September 2016, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfc rick

Looks fine....but I'm no expert, nor do I play one on the TV. It's been serviced and I can see the crystal is a service replacement by the beveled edge you can see in the photo. The dial may be a service dial as well as the hands. The dial is not like my service dial in that the "L" is not slightly to the left of the Crown logo and I don't see open "6"s in the meter rating. The hands are identical to my service hands. Look at my service dial and see what I'm saying. On another note I've been told by the Rolex dealer here, that the bezel is also a replacement service bezel by the fat "40" font.

Mk1 dial for sure, not service... also the beveled edge crystal is original, the straight edge is service...

Sent from my  iPhone 7 using Tapatalk

buenosdias · 18 September 2016, 04:54 PM

Definitely MKIII Lemrich Dial.
Nice MKIII insert, but big dent at 12.30.
Crownguards already quite thin.
Case has seen some polishes in the past.

springer · 19 September 2016, 01:10 AM

That is an interesting dial. Based on my file photos, it is not a Mark I, Mark II or Mark III.

Fonts do not line-up properly for the white Sub dials and the coronet is closest to a Mark I.

If anyone has a white Sub with this same dial in the first post, I would like to see some photos of it.

Michael M. · 19 September 2016, 01:15 AM

The dial appears to be a MK1 from the pictures provided. Serial should fall in 5 million range.

Edit: Springer has a good point, fonts do differ slightly in comparison to his example. Perhaps it is the picture angle and resolution in both?

springer · 19 September 2016, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael M.

The dial appears to be a MK1 from the pictures provided. Serial should fall in 5 million range.

Edit: Springer has a good point, fonts do differ slightly in comparison to his example. Perhaps it is the picture angle and resolution in both?

Definitely not the angle of the photo! If you look at my Mark III photo and the last Mark I photo, both at substantial angles, the fonts still line up properly. Font alignments are way off for the OPs dial to be a Mark I or Mark III.

buenosdias · 19 September 2016, 05:01 AM

IMHO you are wrong this time, John and Michael.
The chart that you attachet is also not correct.
It shows MKI, MKII, another MKII and the first tritium serivce-dial (from left to right).

The MKIII dial is very close to the MKI, but The L of ROLEX is not alligned straight under the crown. It's a bit more left (exactly like the dial, shown by the thread-starter.

Here is are the 3 dials...

MKI Lemrich (L centered under coronet)
IMG_6574.JPG

MKII Beyeler (Different coronet, L far left under coronet)
IMG_6570.JPG

MKIII Lemrich (L slighlty left under crown, slightly different coronet as MKI)

IMG_6571.JPG

springer · 19 September 2016, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buenosdias

IMHO you are wrong this time, John and Michael.
The chart that you attachet is also not correct.
It shows MKI, MKII, another MKII and the first tritium serivce-dial (from left to right).

The MKIII dial is very close to the MKI, but The L of ROLEX is not alligned straight under the crown. It's a bit more left (exactly like the dial, shown by the thread-starter.

Here is are the 3 dials...

MKI Lemrich (L centered under coronet)
Attachment 781157

MKII Beyeler (Different coronet, L far left under coronet)
Attachment 781158

MKIII Lemrich (L slighlty left under crown, slightly different coronet as MKI)

Attachment 781159

That chart has been used by many, it is not mine. Sorry. It's amazing nobody has noticed this before. It's been around and posted many times. So it appears that the one I identified as a Mark III is a Mark II. I can't believe I can't count to three without screwing it up.

Thanks for clearing this up.

I'll try and not be wrong next time!!!!

Perpetual74 · 20 September 2016, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buenosdias

IMHO you are wrong this time, John and Michael.
The chart that you attachet is also not correct.
It shows MKI, MKII, another MKII and the first tritium serivce-dial (from left to right).

The MKIII dial is very close to the MKI, but The L of ROLEX is not alligned straight under the crown. It's a bit more left (exactly like the dial, shown by the thread-starter.

Here is are the 3 dials...

MKI Lemrich (L centered under coronet)
Attachment 781157

MKII Beyeler (Different coronet, L far left under coronet)
Attachment 781158

MKIII Lemrich (L slighlty left under crown, slightly different coronet as MKI)

Attachment 781159

Agree 100%

J!m · 20 September 2016, 01:12 PM

I retract my statement that it is mk I now that ive had a better look at it!

Sorry for any confusion!

nintendo · 24 September 2016, 02:43 PM

That 1680 in question is not a mk1 dial as stated by some. I believe i have a mk1 for comparison.

18 September 2016, 07:50 AM	#6
AgentHsu "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Real Name: Mr. Hsu Location: Los Angeles, CA Watch: Datejust Posts: 607	That clasp would bother me __________________ Good things come to those who wear Rolexes.

18 September 2016, 04:54 PM	#8
buenosdias "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: SeB Location: Germany Watch: MaD_aT_gMt Posts: 1,219	Definitely MKIII Lemrich Dial. Nice MKIII insert, but big dent at 12.30. Crownguards already quite thin. Case has seen some polishes in the past. __________________ aLL ThE BeSt, SeB buenosdiasone on instagram

19 September 2016, 05:01 AM	#12
buenosdias "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: SeB Location: Germany Watch: MaD_aT_gMt Posts: 1,219	IMHO you are wrong this time, John and Michael. The chart that you attachet is also not correct. It shows MKI, MKII, another MKII and the first tritium serivce-dial (from left to right). The MKIII dial is very close to the MKI, but The L of ROLEX is not alligned straight under the crown. It's a bit more left (exactly like the dial, shown by the thread-starter. Here is are the 3 dials... MKI Lemrich (L centered under coronet) IMG_6574.JPG MKII Beyeler (Different coronet, L far left under coronet) IMG_6570.JPG MKIII Lemrich (L slighlty left under crown, slightly different coronet as MKI) IMG_6571.JPG __________________ aLL ThE BeSt, SeB buenosdiasone on instagram

17 September 2016, 08:40 PM	#2
traf "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Real Name: dave Location: miami Watch: me ride bikes Posts: 1,938	Looks like a nice mk1 dial. Seems like a lot of £££ though Sent from my  iPhone 7 using Tapatalk

17 September 2016, 08:44 PM	#3
sfc rick "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Real Name: Rickey Higgins Location: Huntington, TX Watch: 1680 Sub in white Posts: 354	Looks fine....but I'm no expert, nor do I play one on the TV. It's been serviced and I can see the crystal is a service replacement by the beveled edge you can see in the photo. The dial may be a service dial as well as the hands. The dial is not like my service dial in that the "L" is not slightly to the left of the Crown logo and I don't see open "6"s in the meter rating. The hands are identical to my service hands. Look at my service dial and see what I'm saying. On another note I've been told by the Rolex dealer here, that the bezel is also a replacement service bezel by the fat "40" font.

18 September 2016, 01:32 AM	#4
boring_sandwich "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: UK Posts: 145	I had a look at it, however I have decided against it as Im not keen on the size/thickness of the plexi. They do have a lovely 5513 in the shop though although seems expensive at £6750. https://www.austinkaye.co.uk/vintage...tch-rare?back=

18 September 2016, 05:28 AM	#5
J!m "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Real Name: Jim Location: Connecticut Watch: this! Hold my beer Posts: 2,839	That's a mk I dial, not service dial. The blunt triangle at noon... From the one photo it has seen service. I guess it depends on if you want "all genuine" or "all original". It appears all genuine, but not all original.

19 September 2016, 01:15 AM	#10
Michael M. Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Newport Beach, CA Posts: 8,391	The dial appears to be a MK1 from the pictures provided. Serial should fall in 5 million range. Edit: Springer has a good point, fonts do differ slightly in comparison to his example. Perhaps it is the picture angle and resolution in both?

20 September 2016, 01:12 PM	#15
J!m "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Real Name: Jim Location: Connecticut Watch: this! Hold my beer Posts: 2,839	I retract my statement that it is mk I now that ive had a better look at it! Sorry for any confusion!

24 September 2016, 02:43 PM	#16
nintendo "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Singapore Posts: 333	That 1680 in question is not a mk1 dial as stated by some. I believe i have a mk1 for comparison.

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