Submariner 16610 with handwritten papers

[Chris75]

Hi guys, I am considering a 16610 with some very suspicious papers.

The guarantee is handwritten, while as far as I know for any COSC Rolex there must be punched papers.

I know that sometimes Rolex back then made mistakes with guarantees, but I also know that a lot of white papers were for sale on ebay..

What do you think, should I consider (and pay) this watch as a watch only, or how much more for these papers?

[TimeToGo]

.
I would not give any value to that paper...
Watch only

[dhknola]

yeah, I feel like the reference number is nearly always typed out.

[dhknola]

Also, get someone to chime in on bezel, looks off to me*
*I AM NOT AN EXPERT.

[karteo]

The paper is 1986, the L serial I think 1988-89, the date sold 1991 (that's not awkward though).

My N serial 1991 has punched papers

Sent from my M2007J17G using Tapatalk

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by Chris75

......while as far as I know for any COSC Rolex there must be punched papers.

Not correct IMO.

[Chris75]

Originally Posted by swaini3

Not correct IMO.

You mean is not correct for a 16610 to have handwritten papers, right?

[Pilot1985]

Originally Posted by dhknola

yeah, I feel like the reference number is nearly always typed out.

Since I own this watch I will allow myself to comment here :) It's not blurred is just out of focus on that photo.

Originally Posted by dhknola

Also, get someone to chime in on bezel, looks off to me*
*I AM NOT AN EXPERT.

What would you say is off?

Originally Posted by Chris75

You mean is not correct for a 16610 to have handwritten papers, right?

This watch was purchased from Mentawatches which is a quite reputable dealer i the vintage community. He finds quite a bit of watches in south america. And from my talk with him It was common for that time to come with this type of papers.
this one in particular comes from Brazil ad I have seen other examples with the warranty paper only.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/role...9-mint.137738/

If this linnk is not allowed for the rest to have a look at the photos properly please be deleted by the admins.

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by Chris75

You mean is not correct for a 16610 to have handwritten papers, right?

No, I mean you can have hand written written COSC papers. While hand written is more often seen with the short style (Guarantie only) like the one in your pictures, it does not mean hand written is limited to that type only. Hand written certificates are also possible on the 2 in 1 (Longer- Guar + Chronometer).
I have seen hand written guaranties on L series with a dealer stamp sold by a reputable dealer.
If Im not mistaken in Brazil, like Italy, it was common for some dealers there to 'hand write' certificates of the Guarantie only type.

[Chris75]

Originally Posted by swaini3

No, I mean you can have hand written written COSC papers. While hand written is more often seen with the short style (Guarantie only) like the one in your pictures, it does not mean hand written is limited to that type only. Hand written certificates are also possible on the 2 in 1 (Longer- Guar + Chronometer).
I have seen hand written guaranties on L series with a dealer stamp sold by a reputable dealer.
If Im not mistaken in Brazil, like Italy, it was common for some dealers there to 'hand write' certificates of the Guarantie only type.

A 16610 COSC must have punched papers.

That in some countries sloppy mistakes were made doesn't change this fact.

Also this guarantee is signed 1986, while the watch is sold in 1991.

Most punched papers were punched originally from Rolex, but in the case of a wrongly handwritten ones that should have been done by the AD, therefore in 1991 and so not on a 1986 signed paper.

And no, in Italy and Brazil it wasn't common, but for some reason there are just a lot of white papers from South America on ebay.

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by Chris75

A 16610 COSC must have punched papers.

That in some countries sloppy mistakes were made doesn't change this fact.

Also this guarantee is signed 1986, while the watch is sold in 1991.

Most punched papers were punched originally from Rolex, but in the case of a wrongly handwritten ones that should have been done by the AD, therefore in 1991 and so not on a 1986 signed paper.

And no, in Italy and Brazil it wasn't common, but for some reason there are just a lot of white papers from South America on ebay.

You are wrong my friend. It is not a MUST. More expected or more common, yes but it is not a MUST. It could also be typed for an L serial, just to say. There are legit hand written papers, some are dealer stamped, some are not. Some are COSC, some are not.
Whether this paper is legit or not, is not my point. I am just saying that it is a possible scenario.
Are there fake papers out there? Yes.
Are there people selling fake blank papers? Yes.
In Italy, was it common for dealers to issue short Non-COSC hand written guaranties for Non-COSC watches? Yes.

[ebc992299]

Mine is punched out as well. Sorry for the rough news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dhknola]

Bezel numbers look thin, again, I am not an expert.

[JustinK]

Anything is possible if an AD is handwriting papers but many will not place any value in handwritten papers as they could easily be filled out today.

The punched papers are not exempt from counterfeiters either just much harder to do.

[joli160]

Nobody will know until really check with a loupe and check the printing method.
The paper looks like brand new and not aged one bit which seems a bit off

[antrolexsub]

Wrong type of papers for a 16610.

[shaunylw]

That paper, while incorrect, was written recently. There is no age at all on the paper or ink. It looks like it was written yesterday, and it’s supposed to be 20 years old?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rmagoo57]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

That paper, while incorrect, was written recently. There is no age at all on the paper or ink. It looks like it was written yesterday, and it’s supposed to be 20 years old?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NOS!

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by rmagoo57

NOS!

Hahaha, someone will ask 15k more for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thuilln]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

That paper, while incorrect, was written recently. There is no age at all on the paper or ink. It looks like it was written yesterday, and it’s supposed to be 20 years old?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d say 30 years old…

[16610Swiss]

Originally Posted by thuilln

i’d say 30 years old…

35..

[Thuilln]

Originally Posted by 16610Swiss

35..

Right..
I was talking about the hand written date, not the paper per se.

[springer]

Contrary to what the seller told the buyer, sorry, but that paper is not correct for a Submariner 16610 chronometer watch.

The correct paper should be the chronometer/warranty paper depicted in photos below. The watch in the photo by the OP is a warranty paper not a chronometer/guarantee paper which is correct for a 16610 Submariner.

The paper depicted by the OP is for a Submariner 5513, Daytona 6263 or other non chronometer watch from the 1980s.

Contrary to what the seller told you, it is not correct and will always be a watch "with a story." While back in the day, some dealers might have sold a certified chronometer watch with a non chronometer paper, it would not make it correct.

Below are photos of the correct papers for the USA and non USA papers for a Submariner 16610 chronometer from the 1980s and 1990s.

Papers for "L" serial numbers sold in the USA would be typed and non USA papers were punched during this era.

[Pilot1985]

Hi All,

Sorry if I have not been able to be in this thread as much as I would like. I have a simulator assessment next week in Berlin to renew my pilot license so have to study quite a bit.

@Chris75 I will not argue with you that in the perfect world that should be. This watch or set should have a Big COSC Warranty paper. I did questioned myself this when I initially bought.

I had a chat with Adam from Mentawatches from whom I bought the watch and he reassured me about all my doubts. Same as the ones you had.
I even sent you a screenshots with his replies about the subject via DM, and for you is simply not true because you do not believe in mistakes. I try not to be naive either specially when buying an expensive watch. At the time I did as much search to find similar set with those type of papers. I did find 3 in chrono24 which of course now are gone. MY bad I should have taken screenshots but was not planning on selling it at the time, it was more for a peace of mind for myself. At this moment right now I could only find one in CH24 and I attach a photo below.

I have read all your comments and agree they seem to be more on the negative side than the seek of the truth. It appears that you have your mind set and it is your ABSOLUTE truth the only one that counts.

You did not even contact me prior to express your concerns but decided to post directly threads in 2 forums, and only selected photos of the watch.

I would hardly believe the Mentawatches would jeopardize his reputation over a premium of a 16610 to sell me an arrange set. Trust the seller they said. Thats what I did with the amount of info I could gather when I bought from him.

As there was also questioning about the brand new paper look of this watch I took some time to make side by side photos with other COSC papers I have oldest is printed 84 and newest 92. And also side by side Ink comparison with a watch with papers I bought from Sacha Davidoff. Bellow the link, as it was also questioned from a photo that the ink looks brand new.

http://www.db1983.com/our-archive/ro...1985?imageID=0


I will copy the link of this thread in the OF forum sale


Hope you all have a nice day and enjoy the weekend and Motogp and F1 like myself besides the annoying studying.

Regards.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Pilot1985

As there was also questioning about the brand new paper look of this watch I took some time to make side by side photos with other COSC papers I have oldest is printed 84 and newest 92. And also side by side Ink comparison with a watch with papers I bought from Sacha Davidoff. Bellow the link, as it was also questioned from a photo that the ink looks brand new.

The paper itself with your Sub may very well be legit. It's just not correct for the watch.

As Springer pointed out above, it should be the longer chronometer paper for a 16610. I believe there was a short chronometer version in the late '60s/early '70s, but it looks different to your paper and is from a different era.

[Pilot1985]

Originally Posted by swish77

The paper itself with your Sub may very well be legit, it's just not correct for the watch.

As Springer pointed out above, it should be the longer chronometer paper for a 16610. I believe there was a short chronometer version in the late '60s/early '70s, but it looks different to your paper, along with being from a different era.

Not nor ever argued about the incorrect type of paper used.

I am 100% agreed there


Also on a side note some other opinions can be found on this thread on VRF

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...s-t268295.html

[springer]

Originally Posted by Pilot1985

Not nor ever argued about the incorrect type of paper used.

I am 100% agreed there


Also on a side note some other opinions can be found on this thread on VRF

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...s-t268295.html

I was reviewing your post where the watch was listed for sale on the Omega Forums. I found the handwritten green hang tag interesting - it is something that I have never seen before. These tags are typed not handwritten.

So the seller is telling you it is correct but it has handwritten incorrect papers and an incorrect non typed handwritten hang tag. It is all quite interesting in my opinion. While it all might very well have been handwritten by a dealer on the wrong warranty paper and the added hand written hang tag, it is quite unusual indeed and incorrect.

Good luck with the sale.

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by springer

I was reviewing your post where the watch was listed for sale on the Omega Forums. I found the handwritten green hang tag interesting - it is something that I have never seen before. These tags are typed not handwritten.

So the seller is telling you it is correct but it has handwritten incorrect papers and an incorrect non typed handwritten hang tag. It is all quite interesting in my opinion. While it all might very well have been handwritten by a dealer on the wrong warranty paper and the added hand written hang tag, it is quite unusual indeed and incorrect.

Good luck with the sale.

Not to mention- unless the seller was the original buyer, how can he even claim to know how that particular watch was originally papered? If not, then what? The seller he bought it from told him it was so?

[springer]

Originally Posted by Pilot1985

Not nor ever argued about the incorrect type of paper used.

I am 100% agreed there


Also on a side note some other opinions can be found on this thread on VRF

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vint...s-t268295.html

I was reviewing your post where the watch was listed on the Omega Forums. I found the handwritten green hang tag interesting - it is something that I have never seen before. These tags are typed not handwritten.

So, the seller told you the garantie paper was correct but it is not a garantie/chronometer paper and it has a handwritten non typed hang tag. It is all quite interesting in my opinion. While it all might very well have been handwritten by a dealer on the wrong warranty paper and the added hand written hang tag, it is quite unusual indeed and incorrect.

Good luck with the sale.

[JustinK]

So it's impossible to know if the papers were delivered with the watch as you were told.

Maybe they were but as Springer said its a watch "with a story".

You might find someone willing to pay more because of the paper but for me they add no value to the watch.