Serial date vs. Purchase Date

[deepseadweller74]

I'm in the market for a 118238. My confusion lies with the serial date vs. purchase date. Last week I visited a local dealer. He showed me a 118238 with a D serial (05-06) but not pre-owned. He purchased from another dealer who lost ability to sell Rolex watches.

I also see similar thing here in classifieds, i.e. D serial but purchased in 2010.

Few questions: is it possible for a dealer to have a watch sitting in the case for that long or is there another explanation? As far as purchasing, is the actual purchase date a better meter for the condition of the watch than the manufacturer date? Should I be suspicious due the discrepancy in years? Thanks, everyone.

[huncho]

yeah it sounds like new old stock

[R!$]

I would be more concerned with it having sat in a showcase for all those years
people trying it on and everyday it having to go back in the safe

[deepseadweller74]

Originally Posted by R!$

I would be more concerned with it having sat in a showcase for all those years
people trying it on and everyday it having to go back in the safe

Is the lack of wear bad for the movement? Is that why?

[squatchy]

I would be willing to bet that 50%+ of Rolexes sell in a different year than their manufacturing date. The waters are murky once you get into the scrambled serials, but there's no real way to prove.
If the warranty card has never been filled out, then technically it would still come with the 5-year Rolex Warranty upon purchase. This ends up being a better value if you buy a case-aged watch, as the lubricants may be drying up even though the watch has not been worn.
And yes, it is possible for a watch to sit in a case for 10 years unsold. And a 118238 may be the most likely candidate for such a scenario.

[Dsmith1974]

No expert but I could conceive that 12 years without regular running could contribute to the oil coming to the end of its shelf life? So would just be wondering if it would need servicing sooner rather than later?