Discrepancies in chamfering 16710

[Noahgraph]

Hello,

Is there any factual (if that even excists in the world of Rolex) information amongst you knowledgable members available that proves the thicker chamfering seen of early L and E serials in comparison to later serial 16710's?

I currently hold a L-serial in my hand that has some very wide chamfering on a case that I would consider to be close to being untouched, or atleast not redone.

Some people claim that this chamfering is unheard of as 16710's are not supposed to have these more outspoken chamfering.

I will add pictures of my L serial later via tapatalk.

Thanks in advance.

[Noahgraph]

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[decisive]

Extremely wide chamfer for that reference.

[springer]

The case has been refinished. Besides having chamfers that are a little too large, they are too close to the spring bar holes.

[Filipão]

Rule of thumb:

Beware whenever endlinks seat taller than lugs.

Or flush.

[Tools]

Wide chamfers are a cosmetic that some folks love. Personally, I like the looks.

16710's never came from the factory with wide chamfers. Often, when refinishing, they are cut deep to remove edge nicks and dings, or the customer just likes them.

As I said, I like the look, but once you have wide cuts they are very difficult to recover from.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by Filipão

Rule of thumb:

Beware whenever endlinks seat taller than lugs.

Or flush.

depends though - lots of rolexes have wrong endlinks being used which makes this rule hard to follow.

How many times do we see 501 vs. 580 vs. 593 interchanged on submariners for example.

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

depends though - lots of rolexes have wrong endlinks being used which makes this rule hard to follow.

How many times do we see 501 vs. 580 vs. 593 interchanged on submariners for example.

Well, I am sure you'd check them... wouldn't you?

[Noahgraph]

Originally Posted by Tools

Wide chamfers are a cosmetic that some folks love. Personally, I like the looks.

16710's never came from the factory with wide chamfers. Often, when refinishing, they are cut deep to remove edge nicks and dings, or the customer just likes them.

As I said, I like the look, but once you have wide cuts they are very difficult to recover from.

Thats for the reply.

https://rolexpassionmarket.com/watch...box-and-paper/

I have seen some very wide chamfering on the earliest models that are claimed to be untouched by reputable sources (only E and L serials like mentioned).

Wouldnt you describe this to be ‘wide’?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[Noahgraph]

Some better pictures. The last ones were horrible, sorry.



E



Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[Noahgraph]

Sorry for the double post

[Swiftneck]

Originally Posted by Noahgraph

Thats for the reply.

https://rolexpassionmarket.com/watch...box-and-paper/

I have seen some very wide chamfering on the earliest models that are claimed to be untouched by reputable sources (only E and L serials like mentioned).

Wouldnt you describe this to be ‘wide’?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

Hi

There is a big difference between the size of the chamfers on the one you and the one you link to.

And as springer says. They are too close to the holes to be original.

I also doubt that the one you link to is untouched. But that's not based on the size of the chamfers.

Sendt fra min SM-F711B med Tapatalk

[Noahgraph]

Yeah I know but it does show a much wider chamfering imo. Because someone said it never game with wider chamfering. Like ever. I now know my example is definetly redone and a slightly too much for my likings.

I always thought L and E serials had some sort of random width chamfering therefor accepted mine as original. I am still learning every day so I appreciate al feedback even if it is not in my favour!