16800 or 168000

[801]

New member, please be gentle.
Trying definitively to determine if my late1987 purchased Sub Date is a 16800 or triple zero. It has all the characteristics of the triple 000 (gold surround on markers, etc) The one thing I am not sure of is ... the actual model number stamping at the 12 o'clock position between the lugs (with bracelet removed). For triple 000's, does this model stamp actual indicate 168000? Or were triple 000's actually still stamped as 16800's ??
My watch is stamped on side of the case, at 12 o'clock as 16800. So ... I either have a very VERY late model 16800 ... or a triple 000 stamped as 00.
If triple 000's were indeed actually stamped as 168000, then case closed. I definitely have just a very VERY late 16800 that has all the traits of the 000.
Any info would be appreciated. Thanks all. If this belongs in VINTAGE section, please relocate. I'm not real sure what qualifies as Vintage, sorry.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by 801

New member, please be gentle.
Trying definitively to determine if my late1987 purchased Sub Date is a 16800 or triple zero. It has all the characteristics of the triple 000 (gold surround on markers, etc) The one thing I am not sure of is ... the actual model number stamping at the 12 o'clock position between the lugs (with bracelet removed). For triple 000's, does this model stamp actual indicate 168000? Or were triple 000's actually still stamped as 16800's ??
My watch is stamped on side of the case, at 12 o'clock as 16800. So ... I either have a very VERY late model 16800 ... or a triple 000 stamped as 00.
If triple 000's were indeed actually stamped as 168000, then case closed. I definitely have just a very VERY late 16800 that has all the traits of the 000.
Any info would be appreciated. Thanks all. If this belongs in VINTAGE section, please relocate. I'm not real sure what qualifies as Vintage, sorry.

The only difference by looking with your eyes is the extra 0 on the case, yes it did have a short run.But not all short run Rolex watches are collectable,the 168000 is nice to have in any ones collection.But IMHO its not the be-all end-all in the Rolex line up,and today there are many 168000 that are faked simply by adding a extra 0 to the case.All the extra 0 was for the introduction of the 904L SS, but today not thought of as really collectable but a nice reference to have.

[Tools]

The only difference between a late 16800 and a 168000 is that the latter will be 904L steel. They are indistinguishable from each other.

If it isn't stamped, it isn't a 168000.

[77T]

Just idle curiosity, but did the inner side of the caseback have any unique markings to distinguish the 16800 from the 168000?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[padi56]

Originally Posted by 77T

Just idle curiosity, but did the inner side of the caseback have any unique markings to distinguish the 16800 from the 168000?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No just the extra 0 on case between lugs.

[Cooper33]

Yep - that's pretty much it. Because of Rolex secrecy no one really knows when was the production cut off date. There are also cases of 16800 with added 0s - if you search on the vintage section you'll see.

I have a 16800 with matte dial, a late serial at 8.70 (you don't see them as often once they go past 8.4 mil, but I've seen a 8.6 recently (B+P) and as much as my uncle remembers from his 16800 that was robbed years ago, he bought it in early 85 and always had a matte dial.

Regardless, it's a great watch and they're aging pretty well, so congrats!

[801]

Yeah, that's all I was really asking, i.e., were the 000's actually stamped as such. Endless searching for an image of the 000 between-the-lug model number stamping ... has yielded zero results. So I was unclear whether the 000's were stamped "168000".
Mine is stamped "16800" ... although, as mentioned, it has all the traits of the 168000 (bracelet, gold surrounds, gloss dial, etc etc)