Transitional Sub 1680 or 168000? with or without rings? What to do???

[James 45]

I have a choice to make here I am going to buy a Sub and I have two to choose from one has the rings around the markers and is a 168000 in very good shape and the other is a 1680 with out the rings.

Both have good patina colouring and both are matt dials. The one with out the rings is $400 more.
Does it matter that much? What are some thoughts out there.
Thanks for your help!
Here is a picture of the one with rings I don't have any of the other.

[sdwtchlvr]

Well there are many factors to consider but since we have little to no info on either watch, I would say the 1680 is that would win, but that's just comparing references numbers.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by sdwtchlvr

well there are many factors to consider but since we have little to no info on either watch, i would say the 1680 is that would win, but that's just comparing references numbers.

x2

[lupus]

most vintage people hate the rings.

[azguy]

Originally Posted by lupus

most vintage people hate the rings.

x2

[Keeperoftime]

"The rings "

[vmaglio74]

Originally Posted by lupus

most vintage people hate the rings.

1680

[Robbyvm]

without photos.... no objective opinion
if you are into vintage --> 1680

[pdoukas]

Those "rings" are called "surounds" in case you wanted to know the proper terminology.

Both watches present a quandary but without images of the 1680, it's hard to base a decision. Here are some items that you can use to base your decision.

1) The 168000 was produced for only about 9 months. That's pretty rare, but the 168000 is also the bastard stepchild of the Submariner line if you're a vintage purist.
2) The 168000 uses a sapphire crystal. Great for scratch resistance, but once again, if you're a vintage purist you stay away from it because the Plexi Top Hat crystal of the 1680 is just damn sexy.
3) You obviously know it has surounds around the plots. Purists do not believe in the surrounds.

Then there's the whole argument as to whether it is considered a true vintage watch, which I will not go into here.

Without a doubt, I think it looks nice. Me personally though, would opt for a 1680 in the same condition.

Good luck.

[DiamondJack]

I have the 1680 and the 16800 (the one just before the short run 168000) and wanted the 16800 because it was the first with the gold surrounds, the first to have the crystal, the gloss dial which like mine has gone matte and often, as yours does, has quite a deep patina. The lume on my 16800 has gone fairly bright orange which looks very cool IMO.

But given the choice, it really comes down to personal preference and whether you prefer a more vintage look or not. I personally think the 16800 and 168000 are undervalued and will become more desirable given the number of firsts they have in the Rolex Submariner line. But only time will tell........

[RC2]

1680 no question

[Jagatai]

Don't like the wg surrounds but only knew that after I got my very first sub a 14060, then saw my first no wg surround sub and just fell head over heels for them. So in short 1680 for sure.

[wokafu]

i personally would like the 1680..however the ring itself dont justified the extra 400 IMHO...

[Jason71]

1680 hands down.

[Eric88]

1680 all the way

[sdwtchlvr]

Of course knowing the details would help tremendously. If the 1680 is full of service replacement parts, then I might think otherwise about getting it. If you want an honest comparison between 2 specific pieces, try to get as many details as you can.

[James 45]

Thank you very much for all your input. The 1680 has left town with a traveling salesmen.
I hope it makes its way back. That is why I did not have the pictures required, Sorry.
The other that is shown here is just waiting a decision Hmmm.
Well I don't know if you are supposed too talk money here but if you could buy this 168000 for $4000. Is it a good move?