ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Dartmouthbrian · 15 February 2017, 06:07 AM

So i've been eyeing this Sub for a few days elsewhere. What are you alls thoughts? I dig the yellowing on the lume. What would you pay for it? No box no papers. It's a 168000

Thanks in advance for your help and thoughts.

crowncollection · 15 February 2017, 06:27 AM

Looks ok

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yannis · 15 February 2017, 07:27 AM

Case looks thick and patina is nice!

mjclark32 · 15 February 2017, 07:29 AM

Looks pretty good, any service history?

Dartmouthbrian · 15 February 2017, 07:33 AM

Thanks for the thoughts on it. No service history... What do you think a fair price for a Sub like this would be?

GLADIATOR · 15 February 2017, 08:29 AM

Looks great - I also love the yellow patina - fantastic.
Some one serviced the watch in 2016 - worth asking the seller who?
a

Abdullah71601 · 15 February 2017, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartmouthbrian

Thanks for the thoughts on it. No service history... What do you think a fair price for a Sub like this would be?

It is against the rules to value watches on TRF. You can ask if the asking price is fair, but you can't ask for a watch to be priced.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=263244

Dartmouthbrian · 15 February 2017, 10:27 AM

@Abdullah thanks for the heads up on that. Being new, I wasn't aware.

Is $4900 price fair?

NKflyer · 15 February 2017, 10:29 AM

One thing to be cautious about with the 168000's...

Because the 168000 was made for less than one year, it was once thought that it would become a very valuable collectible so there have been some 16800's that were unscrupulously converted to 168000's by stamping an extra "0" into the case. Sometimes, the extra zero is quite crude and doesn't match the other zeros. Is it possible to get a very clear closeup of the reference number stamp from the seller??

As far as price, in spite of what was once believed, the 168000's never really took off and don't carry much of a premium over the 16800 gloss dials or more contemporary 16610's. Perhaps $5k max for the watch pictured and only that much because of the attractive patina.

Dartmouthbrian · 15 February 2017, 10:43 AM

Thanks at NKflyer. Here is my dilemma with the watch... The inside case back on it (at least in the pics) shows 16800 which has me questioning the 168000 authenticity. But then again, I don't know a ton about this watch, so maybe the case backs had 16800 on the 168000 model?

NKflyer · 15 February 2017, 10:56 AM

^^Yeah, I think that could be very likely about the ambiguous casebacks. Get a clear photo of the stampings on the case that are visible with the 6 o'clock side of the bracelet removed or look at them in person with a loupe if the watch is local. Then there will be no doubt.

Even if the extra "0" is faked, the watch still has value if you otherwise like it and you could certainly use that information as a negotiating point.

Check out this thread on which I made some similar comments that turned out to be pretty prescient.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=511823

Dartmouthbrian · 15 February 2017, 11:12 AM

Thanks NKflyer.. Im going to see if I can get some pics

J!m · 15 February 2017, 01:15 PM

I believe 800 case backs were used on 8000 watches. Papers also showed 16800 not 168000 on the few I've see. Very few I've seen- like two.

I was interested in this reference for a while but I prefer the Matte dial and no gold surrounds. So that leaves the 1680 or early 800. I went with the 1680 and have no regrets!

By the way, what's up with the white seconds hand?

Dartmouthbrian · 15 February 2017, 01:20 PM

J!m: same thought I had on the second hands.

Al1969 · 15 February 2017, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J!m

I believe 800 case backs were used on 8000 watches. Papers also showed 16800 not 168000 on the few I've see. Very few I've seen- like two.

I was interested in this reference for a while but I prefer the Matte dial and no gold surrounds. So that leaves the 1680 or early 800. I went with the 1680 and have no regrets!

By the way, what's up with the white seconds hand?

Good catch Jim. I see the patina does not match. Something else for the OP to ask about.

Dartmouthbrian · 15 February 2017, 04:00 PM

Thank you all for being such rock stars and helping out. I appreciate it a lot.

Rudy40 · 15 February 2017, 10:54 PM

Like stated earlier in this thread...One pic shows patina hands (pic #1).. and the rest is white hands...Same deal with the pearl...on the insert..patina in first pic and the rest not...should be flat four insert...but could had been upgraded...the rest looks good...I agree with NK..could be a build...still would have value..good luck

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

15 February 2017, 06:27 AM	#2
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,215	Looks ok Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ watches many

15 February 2017, 07:27 AM	#3
yannis "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Real Name: Yannis Location: Europe Watch: maniac Posts: 9,070	Case looks thick and patina is nice! __________________ Rolex Submariner 116610LV \| Tudor 79220N DSSD MEMBERS - OWNERS CLUB

15 February 2017, 07:29 AM	#4
mjclark32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: MJC Location: PHL USA Watch: IWC, Rolex, AP Posts: 29,232	Looks pretty good, any service history? __________________

15 February 2017, 08:29 AM	#6
GLADIATOR "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: Adam Location: Costa Blanca, Watch: YMII,GMTII,DAYTONA Posts: 5,288	Looks great - I also love the yellow patina - fantastic. Some one serviced the watch in 2016 - worth asking the seller who? a __________________ The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. Winston Churchill "We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done."

15 February 2017, 07:33 AM	#5
Dartmouthbrian "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Real Name: Brian Location: Seattle Watch: Tudor Bronze Posts: 149	Thanks for the thoughts on it. No service history... What do you think a fair price for a Sub like this would be?

15 February 2017, 10:27 AM	#8
Dartmouthbrian "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Real Name: Brian Location: Seattle Watch: Tudor Bronze Posts: 149	@Abdullah thanks for the heads up on that. Being new, I wasn't aware. Is $4900 price fair?

15 February 2017, 10:29 AM	#9
NKflyer 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Real Name: Richard Location: Colorado Posts: 2,858	One thing to be cautious about with the 168000's... Because the 168000 was made for less than one year, it was once thought that it would become a very valuable collectible so there have been some 16800's that were unscrupulously converted to 168000's by stamping an extra "0" into the case. Sometimes, the extra zero is quite crude and doesn't match the other zeros. Is it possible to get a very clear closeup of the reference number stamp from the seller?? As far as price, in spite of what was once believed, the 168000's never really took off and don't carry much of a premium over the 16800 gloss dials or more contemporary 16610's. Perhaps $5k max for the watch pictured and only that much because of the attractive patina.

15 February 2017, 10:43 AM	#10
Dartmouthbrian "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Real Name: Brian Location: Seattle Watch: Tudor Bronze Posts: 149	Thanks at NKflyer. Here is my dilemma with the watch... The inside case back on it (at least in the pics) shows 16800 which has me questioning the 168000 authenticity. But then again, I don't know a ton about this watch, so maybe the case backs had 16800 on the 168000 model?

15 February 2017, 10:56 AM	#11
NKflyer 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Real Name: Richard Location: Colorado Posts: 2,858	^^Yeah, I think that could be very likely about the ambiguous casebacks. Get a clear photo of the stampings on the case that are visible with the 6 o'clock side of the bracelet removed or look at them in person with a loupe if the watch is local. Then there will be no doubt. Even if the extra "0" is faked, the watch still has value if you otherwise like it and you could certainly use that information as a negotiating point. Check out this thread on which I made some similar comments that turned out to be pretty prescient. http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=511823

15 February 2017, 11:12 AM	#12
Dartmouthbrian "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Real Name: Brian Location: Seattle Watch: Tudor Bronze Posts: 149	Thanks NKflyer.. Im going to see if I can get some pics

15 February 2017, 01:15 PM	#13
J!m "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Real Name: Jim Location: Connecticut Watch: this! Hold my beer Posts: 2,839	I believe 800 case backs were used on 8000 watches. Papers also showed 16800 not 168000 on the few I've see. Very few I've seen- like two. I was interested in this reference for a while but I prefer the Matte dial and no gold surrounds. So that leaves the 1680 or early 800. I went with the 1680 and have no regrets! By the way, what's up with the white seconds hand?

15 February 2017, 01:20 PM	#14
Dartmouthbrian "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Real Name: Brian Location: Seattle Watch: Tudor Bronze Posts: 149	J!m: same thought I had on the second hands.

15 February 2017, 04:00 PM	#16
Dartmouthbrian "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Real Name: Brian Location: Seattle Watch: Tudor Bronze Posts: 149	Thank you all for being such rock stars and helping out. I appreciate it a lot.

15 February 2017, 10:54 PM	#17
Rudy40 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Real Name: Rudy Nickles Location: Kentucky Watch: Rolex Day Date Posts: 171	Like stated earlier in this thread...One pic shows patina hands (pic #1).. and the rest is white hands...Same deal with the pearl...on the insert..patina in first pic and the rest not...should be flat four insert...but could had been upgraded...the rest looks good...I agree with NK..could be a build...still would have value..good luck Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

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