16610LV The real 50th Anniversary sub???

[onshow]

Hi all,

With the price of these beautiful watches increasing and in high demand it's interesting to see the price variance between the flat 4 and pointed 4.

The big question is which year is the genuine 50th Anniversary watch?

The first 16610LV's were sold in 2003 but the first sub was released in 1954 at Baselworld so a 2003 16610LV would make it 49 years since the first sub so it begs the question are the 2004 model/purchased 16610LV's the genuine 50th Anniversary models and the ones that are most desirable?

This would make the F series the genuine 50th Anniversary watches???

Thoughts???

[mjg002]

Well I'm sure this will elicit many conflicting views so I will sit back and enjoy the show...

Meantime, I just bought an F Series for that very reason - and specifically a mid series F series from 2004 which does NOT have a Flat 4 as I wanted one I could wear without concern - otherwise it would have inevitably become a safe queen...! But as far as I am concerned it is still a "genuine 50th Anniversary watch"... :-)

[aquatimerfla]

Originally Posted by onshow

Hi all,

With the price of these beautiful watches increasing and in high demand it's interesting to see the price variance between the flat 4 and pointed 4.

The big question is which year is the genuine 50th Anniversary watch?

The first 16610LV's were sold in 2003 but the first sub was released in 1954 at Baselworld so a 2003 16610LV would make it 49 years since the first sub so it begs the question are the 2004 model/purchased 16610LV's the genuine 50th Anniversary models and the ones that are most desirable?

This would make the F series the genuine 50th Anniversary watches???

Thoughts???

As far as Rolex is concerned. Any 16610LV is considered the anniversary submariner. Its only collectors who deem the ‘first’ run as true 50th.

Personally to me the 16610LV to own is the ‘last’ run random serial. Either way all are considered anniversary submariners.

[ajas]

As far as I am concerned Rolex calls 16610LV 50 anniversary.
As this is their product they have right to do so.


Sent from my SM-N935F using Tapatalk

[onshow]

Yes from a "collectors" prospective I would assume a true 50th Anniversary watch would be a 16610LV from 2004 but agree all 16610Lv's are obviously labeled a 50th Anniversary edition.

It comes down to the little details like date, fat 4, 5 ticks under Swiss Made that collectors look for hence the price difference to other 11610Lv's.

Keen to hear others thoughts and opinions.

[Casey VP-26]

I would think a true 50th anniversary should mean exactly that (not 49 or 51 or any other).

[meganfox17]

Correct me if I'm wrong guys !

Rolex Sub
✓Research & Development 1950-1953
✓Sub 6200 Born May 1953
✓Official Announcement of the Sub to the World Sept 1953
✓Passed 132 dives tests of Institute of Deep Sea Research May-Oct 1953
✓Official Launch of Sub 6204 Basel Spring Watch Fair 1954
✓Official sale to public : 4th quarter / Q4 of 1954
✓Submariner font on dial Dec 1954

Summary : 1953 is indeed the birth year of the Rolex Sub

[springer]

Originally Posted by meganfox17

Correct me if I'm wrong guys !

Rolex Sub
✓Research & Development 1950-1953
✓Sub 6200 Born May 1953
✓Official Announcement of the Sub to the World Sept 1953
✓Passed 132 dives tests of Institute of Deep Sea Research May-Oct 1953
✓Official Launch of Sub 6204 Basel Spring Watch Fair 1954
✓Official sale to public : 4th quarter / Q4 of 1954
✓Submariner font on dial Dec 1954

Summary : 1953 is indeed the birth year of the Rolex Sub

Thank you! I was beginning to wonder when the post would show up with the correct year for the first Sub.

[onshow]

It's a bit like a car, it takes years of research and development including promoting and advertising but it's the year it's first launched that counts.

No diffetent to having a child. We don't count the time it's developing we count from the day it's released to the world.

Just my 2 cents.

First sub released 1954 at baselworld which makes 2004 the true Anniversary in my opinion.

[Loevhagen]

Funny thread. :)

Then the Y-series 16610LV from late 2002 is not worth much.

[larsr]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

Funny thread. :)

Then the Y-series 16610LV from late 2002 is not worth much.

You are so correct! And I am more than willing to buy any and all for realistic prices that reflect this obvious fact!

[Johny]

All 16610LVs are anniversary models. Collectors value the earlier models more. Wish I had a random serial one...

[onshow]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

Funny thread. :)

Then the Y-series 16610LV from late 2002 is not worth much.

From my research the first Y-series was late 2003.

[SMD]

Originally Posted by onshow

From my research the first Y-series was late 2003.

I have an F flat four with December 2003 papers. FWIW

[builtforspeed]

Originally Posted by SMD

I have an F flat four with December 2003 papers. FWIW

I, too, have a 16610V with oval 'O', flat four, F Serial 02.... Purchased 23 December 2003 (bill of sale and open warranty date). I've never seen evidence that there exists a 'Y' Serial 16610V.

[101031-28]

Originally Posted by builtforspeed

I, too, have a 16610V with oval 'O', flat four, F Serial 02.... Purchased 23 December 2003 (bill of sale and open warranty date). I've never seen evidence that there exists a 'Y' Serial 16610V.

Purchased my first 16610LV in December 2003, Y946XXX serial. They do exist, but as rare as you can imagine being at the end of the Y serial production run.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

Funny thread. :)

Then the Y-series 16610LV from late 2002 is not worth much.

Surely you must be joking.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

Funny thread. :)

Then the Y-series 16610LV from late 2002 is not worth much.

They were released during 2003.

[Loevhagen]

Originally Posted by springer

They were released during 2003.

I know - so that's why it was said tongue in cheek. However, first had Y-serial watch case and these were probably produced in 2002.

[fleabag]

2003,Flat 4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Argonaut]

Originally Posted by fleabag

2003,Flat 4

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you wear it?

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by fleabag

2003,Flat 4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need to send all of that marketing hype back to Rolex and demand a 2004 watch. Rolex made a mistake, which you must demand they correct. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fleabag]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

You need to send all of that marketing hype back to Rolex and demand a 2004 watch. Rolex made a mistake, which you must demand they correct. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your right there , I’m going to throw all this rubbish & waste of paper in the bin ..... the full lot of it, right now



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by onshow

The first 16610LV's were sold in 2003 but the first sub was released in 1954 at Baselworld so a 2003 16610LV would make it 49 years since the first sub so it begs the question are the 2004 model/purchased 16610LV's the genuine 50th Anniversary models and the ones that are most desirable?

So you are basing this distinction on sales date rather than production date?

[onshow]

Originally Posted by beshannon

So you are basing this distinction on sales date rather than production date?

Going by the release date. Rolex released its first sub in 1954 at baselworld.

[subtona]

Personally I don't think it makes all that much difference.

As long as it is an LV and in good shape that should be what drives price.

If it is from this year or that ; if the bezel is lime green or green... no big deal.


I'll take the best price for the best condition LV available if I was looking.

More of a significant decision for me would be with or without the engraved rehaut.

Or with or without the double serial number stamps.

[meganfox17]

Originally Posted by subtona

Personally I don't think it makes all that much difference. As long as it is an LV and in good shape that should be what drives price. If it is from this year or that ; if the bezel is lime green or green... no big deal.
I'll take the best price for the best condition LV available if I was looking

You have made a very astute observation Sir that it is the pristine condition of any Kermit 16610LV that plays a major role in the driving the price upwards. Here's prove. The photos below show an original all authenticated BNIB NOS Kermit 2015. Yes ! Dated 2015 ! with full protective stickers intact fitted with its plastic bezel currently for sale in the Far East and the most expensive Kermit available on the international market as of mid Nov 2017 (Source: Hong Kong Watch Fever FB + blogger HK Watch Snob) retailing at HK$ 150 000 or US$ 19.2 K ! That's an extra US$ 5 K more expensive than its nearest competitor, a preowned Kermit Flat 4 F in super minty condition with papers dated early 2004 if I'm not mistaken. So I believe a Kermit is worth whatever a buyer is willing to stump out and the physical appearance of the timepiece itself (Unpolished, sharp lines on casing,lugs etc )

Of course the OP is entitled to provide his argumentative points on why 2004 should be declared as the true 50th Anniversary but I'm afraid that will go against the exhaustive research done by leading experts on the matter and contradict opinions of well known Rolex Watch Connoisseurs around the world...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...ary+Submariner

[mjg002]

Originally Posted by meganfox17

You have made a very astute observation Sir that it is the pristine condition of any Kermit 16610LV that plays a major role in the driving the price upwards. Here's prove. The photos below show an original all authenticated BNIB NOS Kermit 2015. Yes ! Dated 2015 ! with full protective stickers intact fitted with its plastic bezel currently for sale in the Far East and the most expensive Kermit available on the international market as of mid Nov 2017 (Source: Hong Kong Watch Fever FB + blogger HK Watch Snob) retailing at HK$ 150 000 or US$ 19.2 K ! That's an extra US$ 5 K more expensive than its nearest competitor, a preowned Kermit Flat 4 F in super minty condition with papers dated early 2004 if I'm not mistaken. So I believe a Kermit is worth whatever a buyer is willing to stump out and the physical appearance of the timepiece itself (Unpolished, sharp lines on casing,lugs etc )

Of course the OP is entitled to provide his argumentative points on why 2004 should be declared as the true 50th Anniversary but I'm afraid that will go against the exhaustive research done by leading experts on the matter and contradict opinions of well known Rolex Watch Connoisseurs around the world...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...ary+Submariner

"...the most expensive Kermit available on the international market as of mid Nov 2017."
I don't think so.... Watchfinder in the UK has two currently priced at GBP 15,950 (USD 21,373 at current exchange rate).... One is effectively a BNIB watch with stickers in place from 2011 and the other a used Flat 4 from 2004. Just as info...

[fleabag]

Beautiful


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Godfather111]

Mine is the 2008 M series. Not flat 4, and it has the more modern Rolex etching on the rehaut (or flange).

I actually preferred it over the original 2004 version, and still do. I refer to the first rule of watch collecting, buy what you like. And I love that it has that modern etching detail on a 5-digit Rolex.

I don't think anyone looking at it would say, hey that's not really a 50th anniversary. If someone does, then I would just walk away and leave them talking to air.