Is this a 4 or 5 digit Datejust?

[the dark knight]

I posted about my adventures on the general forum, but I wanted to post here to see if you guys had some insight.

I sent my dad (and grandpa's) Datejust to RSC Dallas for a full restoration. They are rejecting service because they say the movement is not correct for the model. They will not tell me what movement is currently in the watch, but they told me everything is authentic OEM Rolex, just not correct for the specific reference. The clasp is also not correct for the reference, according to RSC.

RSC says the reference is 1601/3, with a serial number of 707x.

Before I sent the watch to RSC, I did remove the bracelet to see if I could find the reference and serial numbers. Due to scratching, gunk, corrosion, etc., I could not make out the first digits of the serial, so I gave up on that. I could make out a 1601 for the reference, but could not tell if there was another digit after that.

The watch had quickset date with the crown pulled out in 2nd position, so I had just figured it was a 16013 with a 3035 movement.

A 707x serial would date production to about 1981. I asked RSC about this and whether 4 digit references were even made in the early 80s, and they just told me the serial numbers don't always accurately reflect the production date.

I've spent a lot of time searching 1601s, and I can't seem to find one that looks like my dad's watch. The linen dials I'm finding are pie pan. Plenty of 16013s that look just like my dad's though. But I don't think RSC would be wrong about this, so I'm just really confused.

Any thoughts?

[alwayshere]

From the pictures alone, your Rolex is a 5 digit Datejust.

The four digit Datejust has a pie pan dial (steps down near the circumference of the dial) and doesn't have quickset (housed either a 1570/ 1575 movement) so if yours is quickset, then its likely a 5 digit with a 3035 movement within.

The issue might be a 3035 fitted inside a 4 digit case if Rolex is saying its not 100% correct? Wait for others to chime in on compatibility. I have not checked to see if that is the case.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

From the pictures alone, your Rolex is a 5 digit Datejust.

The four digit Datejust has a pie pan dial (steps down near the circumference of the dial) and doesn't have quickset (housed either a 1570/ 1575 movement) so if yours is quickset, then its likely a 5 digit with a 3035 movement within.

The issue might be a 3035 fitted inside a 4 digit case if Rolex is saying its not 100% correct? Wait for others to chime in on compatibility. I have not checked to see if that is the case.

Man this is getting weird. My dial is definitely not a pie pan, and the movement is quickset.

Rolex is claiming it's a 1601/3 case with a noncompatible (but still Rolex) movement inside.

But they didn't say the dial was not correct for the model. I don't understand how if the dial is correct, then it would be a 4 digit.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Man this is getting weird. My dial is definitely not a pie pan, and the movement is quickset.

Rolex is claiming it's a 1601/3 case with a noncompatible (but still Rolex) movement inside.

But they didn't say the dial was not correct for the model. I don't understand how if the dial is correct, then it would be a 4 digit.

Well isn’t that your answer?

Most likely you have a 16013 dial (since it’s not a pie pan) on a 3035 quickset movement which makes sense and it’s fitted into a 4 digit 1601 case. I wasn’t aware that the 3035 fits the 1601 cases directly but perhaps they do.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Well isn’t that your answer?

Most likely you have a 16013 dial (since it’s not a pie pan) on a 3035 quickset movement which makes sense and it’s fitted into a 4 digit 1601 case. I wasn’t aware that the 3035 fits the 1601 cases directly but perhaps they do.

Well my point is if it's a 1601 case, the dial doesn't match. But RSC didn't flag the dial as not correct to the model, but they did flag the movement and clasp. Seems odd.

In addition, the serial number of 707x suggests a 1981 build. I was under the impression 1601s were phased out in the 70s. Some searching on this forum suggests nobody has seen a 1601 beyond a 5.5million serial number.

So it seems like I have a watch with a dial, movement, and clasp that is definitely indicative of a 16013 (or at least NOT a 1601). A serial number that is strongly suggestive of a 16013. But a case that RSC says is a 1601.

It's unlikely RSC has the reference wrong, right? Considering it's engraved between lugs and inside the caseback. Maybe they got the serial wrong?

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

But RSC didn't flag the dial as not correct to the model, but they did flag the movement and clasp. Seems odd.

Rolex are in the business of selling new watches and servicing them. The tech who looked at it may not necessarily have been an expert in vintage. Or maybe once they'd seen the movement, it was a dealbreaker so they didn't spend much time on the other details.

Anyway, I'd consider this board collectively more knowledgeable about vintage than the average RSC grunt.

[Waterproofpt]

It’s hard to see the dial clearly in your photos. Any 4 digit Datejust should have a piepan dial and 1570 non quickset movement. The 5 digit ones would not have the piepan dial and have the 3035 quickset movement. It would be helpful to post photos of the movement. Failing that, you could change the time and date and see if it has quickset or not. As for the case …. inside the caseback and between the lugs should tell you what you need to know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[goyo]

Thank you. Please check your Inbox, I am trying to reach out to you.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Waterproofpt

It’s hard to see the dial clearly in your photos. Any 4 digit Datejust should have a piepan dial and 1570 non quickset movement. The 5 digit ones would not have the piepan dial and have the 3035 quickset movement. It would be helpful to post photos of the movement. Failing that, you could change the time and date and see if it has quickset or not. As for the case …. inside the caseback and between the lugs should tell you what you need to know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MorningTundra]

Your watch has been recased. Not a big deal or uncommon for DJs. Just send it to an independent for servicing.

[Gekota]

The dial is definitely not a 4 digit dial. Also, 4 digit datejust dials would not be able to be mounted onto a quickset movement, unless it has been tampered with or customized to do so. As pointed out by other TRFers earlier, it may also be a re-cased watch.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Gekota

The dial is definitely not a 4 digit dial. Also, 4 digit datejust dials would not be able to be mounted onto a quickset movement, unless it has been tampered with or customized to do so. As pointed out by other TRFers earlier, it may also be a re-cased watch.

Thanks, the re-casing theory may make sense. But would this dial and a quickset movement (I'm guessing 3035) fit in a 1601 case?

[Woody]

If the serial number is in the 700,000 range (rather than 7 million) then it would date to the early 60s, which would be correct for a 1601-3. My take on this is that it is likely to have been a watch that was heavily used and that went through a "refurb" sometime in the early 80s - watch had a new movement installed along with the latest style dial and (possibly) a new bracelet. All of this could have been done by a reseller who then sold the watch to your Grandfather (or he could have owned from new in the early 60s). Just a possible scenario for you to consider, but as a previous poster has said it was very common for these models to be refurnished in such a way - at the time no one was particularly concerned about originality and the watches were just good quality items that were intended to be worn. For what it is worth I personally wouldn't worry too much about the backstory and would just have the watch serviced by a good independent watchmaker. It is a great watch for you to own. Thanks for sharing.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Woody

If the serial number is in the 700,000 range (rather than 7 million) then it would date to the early 60s, which would be correct for a 1601-3. My take on this is that it is likely to have been a watch that was heavily used and that went through a "refurb" sometime in the early 80s - watch had a new movement installed along with the latest style dial and (possibly) a new bracelet. All of this could have been done by a reseller who then sold the watch to your Grandfather (or he could have owned from new in the early 60s). Just a possible scenario for you to consider, but as a previous poster has said it was very common for these models to be refurnished in such a way - at the time no one was particularly concerned about originality and the watches were just good quality items that were intended to be worn. For what it is worth I personally wouldn't worry too much about the backstory and would just have the watch serviced by a good independent watchmaker. It is a great watch for you to own. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you Woody.

The serial (according to RSC's paperwork) is actually a 7million, so would date to around 1981. Sorry if I wasn't clear about this.

Hence the confusion, as I thought the 1601 was phased out in the 70s, and several posters have said it would be a very very late serial for a 4 digit. Some claim 5million is the latest they've seen for a 1601.

[Gekota]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Thank you Woody.

The serial (according to RSC's paperwork) is actually a 7million, so would date to around 1981. Sorry if I wasn't clear about this.

Hence the confusion, as I thought the 1601 was phased out in the 70s, and several posters have said it would be a very very late serial for a 4 digit. Some claim 5million is the latest they've seen for a 1601.

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Thanks, the re-casing theory may make sense. But would this dial and a quickset movement (I'm guessing 3035) fit in a 1601 case?

If RSC's paperwork states it to be a 7m serial, then it is indeed a 16013 watch / case and not a 1601-3, since it has a quickset and a non wide boy / pie pan dial as well. RSC do and can make mistakes, especially when it comes to older watches. I'm unsure why RSC has stated that the movement is not correct to the watch (maybe it has a 3135 instead of the 3035?). Also, I don't think you can just drop a 3035 quickset into a 1601 case, but it'll probably fit with some tweaking.

My guess is that you have a 16013 that possibly has a 3135 movement or the watch has been re-cased to fit the current movement that is not period correct to it; it has all original Rolex parts, but is just not a completely period correct Rolex watch or / and may possibly have seen some tampering on its original parts. Anyway, all the best and hope it works out well for you. Regardless of how this turns out, you have a beautiful watch!

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Gekota

If RSC's paperwork states it to be a 7m serial, then it is indeed a 16013 watch / case and not a 1601-3, since it has a quickset and a non wide boy / pie pan dial as well. RSC do and can make mistakes, especially when it comes to older watches. I'm unsure why RSC has stated that the movement is not correct to the watch (maybe it has a 3135 instead of the 3035?). Also, I don't think you can just drop a 3035 quickset into a 1601 case, but it'll probably fit with some tweaking.

My guess is that you have a 16013 that possibly has a 3135 movement or the watch has been re-cased to fit the current movement that is not period correct to it; it has all original Rolex parts, but is just not a completely period correct Rolex watch or / and may possibly have seen some tampering on its original parts. Anyway, all the best and hope it works out well for you. Regardless of how this turns out, you have a beautiful watch!

Thanks, what you are saying makes a lot of sense. It would really shock me how Rolex could make a mistake on the reference if they have the correct serial. I was under the impression they have a database where they can enter the serial and all the pertinent info would be there.

The CSR would not tell me the the model of the movement inside the case, saying it was against "policy". But she said there was nothing non-original Rolex or fake in the watch or movement.

I am starting to wonder if the tech that checked the movement was working under the assumption that this is a 1601, saw a 3035, and automatically assumed wrong movement for watch. Seems almost too simple and silly of an oversight, but I am starting to question it.

Anyway, I requested a callback from a supervisor and/or technician so I can go over these issues, so hopefully I get some answers.

[Gekota]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Thanks, what you are saying makes a lot of sense. It would really shock me how Rolex could make a mistake on the reference if they have the correct serial. I was under the impression they have a database where they can enter the serial and all the pertinent info would be there.

The CSR would not tell me the the model of the movement inside the case, saying it was against "policy". But she said there was nothing non-original Rolex or fake in the watch or movement.

I am starting to wonder if the tech that checked the movement was working under the assumption that this is a 1601, saw a 3035, and automatically assumed wrong movement for watch. Seems almost too simple and silly of an oversight, but I am starting to question it.

Anyway, I requested a callback from a supervisor and/or technician so I can go over these issues, so hopefully I get some answers.

No problem.

Yup, definitely plausible that someone at RSC made a mistake regarding the issue of 16013 and 1601-3.

I also find their following of whatever policy / protocol a little obsequious as this is, most probably, quite a straightforward issue where they could have just furnished the details straight up to the customer in the first instance. Excessive corporate red tape can be a turn-off especially if it is about something that could be resolved within a couple of mins.

[alwayshere]

Why don't you remove the bracelet and take a good pic of the model number engravings. This might also resolve this issue. I get there is wear in that area but number spacing, font, etc may still be helpful for someone to determine whether it is a 4 or 5 digit DJ

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Why don't you remove the bracelet and take a good pic of the model number engravings. This might also resolve this issue. I get there is wear in that area but number spacing, font, etc may still be helpful for someone to determine whether it is a 4 or 5 digit DJ

It's currently at RSC.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

It's currently at RSC.

when you get it back that is.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

when you get it back that is.

Oh ok, gotya. I'm sure I'll get to the bottom of this one way or another.

[the dark knight]

Spoke to a supervisor at RSC. They confirmed it's a 3035 movement. I asked whether a 3035 with a 3035 dial would even fit in a 1601 case, and I got a nebulous "we've seen replaced movements before" type answer. I've personally done some searching on the issue and I can't seem to get a definitive answer. At the very least it appears it's not a simple drop in, appears that some modifications are needed, but someone here can correct me if wrong.

I made the point that I seem to have a watch that has a 16013 movement, dial, buckle, bracelet, even possibly the serial.

They told me I can't speak to a service tech directly (RSC policy allegedly) but they would forward what I said to their "lead" tech and have them look at the watch one final time to make sure it's a 1601 case.

[Gekota]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Spoke to a supervisor at RSC. They confirmed it's a 3035 movement. I asked whether a 3035 with a 3035 dial would even fit in a 1601 case, and I got a nebulous "we've seen replaced movements before" type answer. I've personally done some searching on the issue and I can't seem to get a definitive answer. At the very least it appears it's not a simple drop in, appears that some modifications are needed, but someone here can correct me if wrong.

I made the point that I seem to have a watch that has a 16013 movement, dial, buckle, bracelet, even possibly the serial.

They told me I can't speak to a service tech directly (RSC policy allegedly) but they would forward what I said to their "lead" tech and have them look at the watch one final time to make sure it's a 1601 case.

Well, it's probably another couple of days before they will get back to you. No bad news is good news at this point, I guess. Though, I can imagine that you would already be a little vexed with the waiting game by now. Anyway, you may want to do a check around your area in the meantime for a decent watchmaker for your future Rolex servicing needs. Once again, I hope this turns out great for you and all the best!

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Gekota

Well, it's probably another couple of days before they will get back to you. No bad news is good news at this point, I guess. Though, I can imagine that you would already be a little vexed with the waiting game by now. Anyway, you may want to do a check around your area in the meantime for a decent watchmaker for your future Rolex servicing needs. Once again, I hope this turns out great for you and all the best!

Thanks! I found at least 2 independents around my area that are highly recommended on these forums, so that's a positive.

Yep, the waiting is a bit tiresome, but it's already been away a month, what's another couple of days? I do wish the CSR I spoke with last Thursday had just forwarded the issue directly to a service tech to have them take a look again at the case, but oh well.

[Gekota]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Thanks! I found at least 2 independents around my area that are highly recommended on these forums, so that's a positive.

Yep, the waiting is a bit tiresome, but it's already been away a month, what's another couple of days? I do wish the CSR I spoke with last Thursday had just forwarded the issue directly to a service tech to have them take a look again at the case, but oh well.

No worries.

Yeah, sometimes the blind following of chain of command and policies in certain cases gets to me as well.

[77T]

I’m thinking much of this confusion will be settled when you receive the emailed quote. The verbal back and forth with RSC can seem tiresome if they don’t have the information you want (or sometimes misinterpret policy).

From the pictures and discussion thus far - how likely is it that your watch was previously serviced by an independent who added or changed some items? Swapping movements, dials, cases, etc. was a loosely governed practice back in ‘70’s-‘80’s…

The way that RSC knows the caliber inside your DJ doesn’t belong to the watch case is because they have the build information to which only they have access.

You will be told all in an emailed PDF service estimate, including caliber, and the necessary service items that are required vs optional service items. It will be about 3 pages long.

If you don’t like what you see, decline it all, pay a small service charge and then you can send it to a qualified, trusted vintage watchmaker. The tale of that case and that movement would more likely be confirmed when he sees it.

Let’s assume the midcase is original. I am guessing the original DJ had a 'pie pan' dial. But there might have been a problem if the 1575 movement needed replacing sometime in the ‘80’s. That’s because the 3035 movement sits higher in the case by just under 1 mm. And because of the pie pan dial....that watchmaker replaced an original pie pan with that tapestry dial. That gave just enough room to fit a 3035 into the case without a lot of other bother.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by 77T

I’m thinking much of this confusion will be settled when you receive the emailed quote. The verbal back and forth with RSC can seem tiresome if they don’t have the information you want (or sometimes misinterpret policy).

From the pictures and discussion thus far - how likely is it that your watch was previously serviced by an independent who added or changed some items? Swapping movements, dials, cases, etc. was a loosely governed practice back in ‘70’s-‘80’s…

The way that RSC knows the caliber inside your DJ doesn’t belong to the watch case is because they have the build information to which only they have access.

You will be told all in an emailed PDF service estimate, including caliber, and the necessary service items that are required vs optional service items. It will be about 3 pages long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I've actually received 3 emailed service estimates. The caliber was not on any of them. But it had the reference, serial, and part numbers for the dial and bracelet.

The reference was given as 1601/3. I overlooked this as I thought it was a typo as I knew the movement was quickset, so I thought they meant 16013.

The first service estimate had the required vs optional items, and a summary of the condition of the watch. It did not mention the movement issue. I accepted all the service items except 1 optional.

The second service estimate was identical to the first except it had removed that 1 optional item. I approved this one.

The third service estimate had all the service items removed except for shipping cost, and in the watch condition summary they added that the movement did not match the case and they couldn't service the watch.

I asked why they didn't catch the issue prior to actually writing up the initial service estimate, and they told me the initial estimate was based on just an exterior and cursory review of the watch.

So the current verbal back and forth has gone on AFTER the 3 written estimates I've gotten. Not too bothered, in 1-2 days I should get a final resolution to this anyway.

As far as the history of the watch and servicing, some of it is hazy due to my grandpa having passed away and my dad's own memory regarding the watch fading. My grandpa definitely received the watch as a gift, my dad is pretty sure sometime in the early 80s. My dad is pretty sure my grandpa never serviced it as he wore it till it stopped running and then just put it away instead of getting it fixed. My dad received the watch in 2000 in non-running condition and took it to an independent to get it running. My dad doesn't remember the details of that service, but he is very sure that the dial of the watch did not change at that service, which seems to suggest the 3035 (and the dial) were in the watch prior to my dad getting it serviced in 2000.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by 77T

Let’s assume the midcase is original. I am guessing the original DJ had a 'pie pan' dial. But there might have been a problem if the 1575 movement needed replacing sometime in the ‘80’s. That’s because the 3035 movement sits higher in the case by just under 1 mm. And because of the pie pan dial....that watchmaker replaced an original pie pan with that tapestry dial. That gave just enough room to fit a 3035 into the case without a lot of other bother.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sorry, didn't see this when I first replied. So a 3035 movement with a non-pie pan dial will definitely fit in a 1601 case? That was a question I had.

And of course the 7million serial is throwing me off, as that appears to be a 1981 build, more likely to be a 16013, and would jive with what we know of the watch's history.

Of course what you outline is certainly a possibility. Although my dad is sure that the dial was not changed when he serviced it in 2000. And I'm assuming if a new movement was needed at that time they might have put in a 3135?

There is a chance my grandpa got it serviced sometime in the 80s, sure, but that's very unlikely from what my dad remembers. He was the type to just put the watch away if it broke, as he didn't fully understand the value of a Rolex. Definitely not the type to pay to service a broken watch.

But this is all conversation. I asked them to have a service tech take a look at it one more time. If they confirm 1601, I doubt they'd screw it up a 2nd (or actually 3rd?) time, so I just get the watch back and take it to an independent. I'm just curious more than anything at this point. And I'd still like RSC to service it if possible, though that seems unlikely.

[77T]

All of my previous NY RSC quotes have included the caliber - but the last one was in 2018 so times do change…

Sorry I missed the point that they had sent multiple quotes before the convo’s with RSC.

My scenario was the only idea I had to explain how a 3035 ended up in a 1601 case - and the potential reason a 1601 didn’t have its elegant pie pan still in it.

Will you be letting them do the work? It seems future communication might not meet your expectations.

The benefit of an indie watchmaker is that you talk to the real deal at every step.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by 77T

All of my previous NY RSC quotes have included the caliber - but the last one was in 2018 so times do change…

Sorry I missed the point that they had sent multiple quotes before the convo’s with RSC.

My scenario was the only idea I had to explain how a 3035 ended up in a 1601 case - and the potential reason a 1601 didn’t have its elegant pie pan still in it.

Will you be letting them do the work? It seems future communication might not meet your expectations.

The benefit of an indie watchmaker is that you talk to the real deal at every step.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No worries! Well if they confirm it's a 1601, I won't have any choice as they will refuse to do the work.

If somehow they say they made a mistake and it's a 16013, I'm leaning towards them just doing the work as I originally approved. The communications issues and their initial mess-up is giving me pause, sure. If you have a 1601 case and you see a 3035 in there, most people on this forum could tell you it's not the original movement. The fact that a technician wouldn't even open the watch up or at least take a look at the caliber before writing up a full estimate (their version of things) or have a tech on staff that doesn't know a 3035 doesn't belong in a 1601 (the only other possible explanation for the initial estimate) doesn't inspire a ton of confidence. OTOH, RSC has tons and tons of satisfied customers and mistakes do happen. So I am leaning towards having them do the work, but I probably won't have that option anyway.

Massive irony here imo is that one of their required service items that I approved was replacing the entire midcase and caseback. So they'd be dropping an authentic 3035 with authentic dial into a new case anyway. But their rigid policy won't let them do that if it's indeed a 1601 case.

[77T]

If it’s 7mill# then like other said, it’s no 1601 IMHO. That’s years apart from the 5 digit intro that replaced them.

It is possible someone at RSC has mis-read the ref. #, or messed up the record. The 1601/3 I mean. It’s more likely the case ref matches the 7mill#

If you have 3135 I’d be shocked. 3035 was introduced in ‘77. Ten years later, the 3135 came about. If you have the KIF shock system on the balance then it’s 3135 and another source of confusion.

Yes either could be shoehorned into the 1601 case - but using a flat dial was the easy way. A 1575 was just a tad thinner. So the pie pan had some interference at the edges. Keeping the pie pan (I’ve read) would require a lot more work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro