Price differential for BLNR

[LooseCann0n]

Am looking to purchase a 116710 BLNR and have two options - was wondering if the experienced group can help me decide. The price is the same in both cases.

Option 1
Card from 2013 and recently serviced and case/bracelet refurbished by Rolex with the addition of a new link, glass and crown. Service stickers attached and unworn since so I believe around 2yr warranty.

Option 2
Card from 2017. Therefore also under warranty but marginally less. Great condition so probably had a light polish by the dealer.

The dilemma is, should I go for option 1 as it is in better condition if you discount the age (which is negligible for a watch with an expected lifetime of 100+ years). Or should the lack of price difference lead me towards option 2.

The niggle is the work carried out. Needing a new glass and crown indicates a “bad” accident so what about the refurbishment required on the case/bracelet. If it was say, dropped onto concrete from a height, glass was broken and got into the movement. Also maybe the damage to the case may have required welding etc. Does the RSC do this or do they simply replace the part?

I know that RSC can work wonders but maybe it would be better to get one in original condition..?
Total cost of service was £750 so maybe the damage wasn’t that bad and I am being paranoid..?

What would you do (and why?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beaglehusky]

I'd definitely go for option 1. It's a newer watch,still under warranty, although you probably won't use it, and without the knowledge that something happened that required a glass change. I'm not a fan of polishing, but I'd go for this option even if that's the case.

Good luck with your decision!

[Jonah10]

Go for the newer watch!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by LooseCann0n

Am looking to purchase a 116710 BLNR and have two options - was wondering if the experienced group can help me decide. The price is the same in both cases.

Option 1
Card from 2013 and recently serviced and case/bracelet refurbished by Rolex with the addition of a new link, glass and crown. Service stickers attached and unworn since so I believe around 2yr warranty.

Option 2
Card from 2017. Therefore also under warranty but marginally less. Great condition so probably had a light polish by the dealer.

The dilemma is, should I go for option 1 as it is in better condition if you discount the age (which is negligible for a watch with an expected lifetime of 100+ years). Or should the lack of price difference lead me towards option 2.

The niggle is the work carried out. Needing a new glass and crown indicates a “bad” accident so what about the refurbishment required on the case/bracelet. If it was say, dropped onto concrete from a height, glass was broken and got into the movement. Also maybe the damage to the case may have required welding etc. Does the RSC do this or do they simply replace the part?

I know that RSC can work wonders but maybe it would be better to get one in original condition..?
Total cost of service was £750 so maybe the damage wasn’t that bad and I am being paranoid..?

What would you do (and why?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are being extremely paranoid to what might have happened to the watch , crowns are often replaced at service, so are crystals as they are prone to tiny chips on the edges. Myself would take option 1 as it has a full service and a two year warranty and basically the same watch as the 2017.

[blada4life]

Originally Posted by padi56

You are being extremely paranoid to what might have happened to the watch , crowns are often replaced at service, so are crystals as they are prone to tiny chips on the edges. Myself would take option 1 as it has a full service and a two year warranty and basically the same watch as the 2017.

This. My wife has similar issue on a DJ. Small Knick on corner of glass. She doesn’t even remember hitting it. Go with option 1. Was the first year of blnr production too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joli160]

option 1;
Rolex likes to change crystals, good business model. I always go along with that game, despite any damage not visible to the naked eye. I just like my watches looking new after a service.

[Token74]

I thought that the crown was always replaced at service, certainly was on my wife’s watch when it was done recently. She also had the Crystal replaced as it had a chip in it apparently, she’d never noticed so must have been minor, but it was about £80 so we have the go ahead anyway (unlike the white gold fluted bezel that also has a tiny ding in it but was going to cost a grand to replace).

So I would go for option one and not worry about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1William]

Option 1 as the watch has the service and newer warranty.

[huba01]

Option 1 for me also, fresh service is always appreciated.

[LooseCann0n]

Originally Posted by padi56

...crowns are often replaced at service, so are crystals as they are prone to tiny chips on the edges...

Did not know that about crowns. It is likely I am being paranoid as thought it must have been a catastrophic event that led to the replacements, rather than these being quite usual at service time.

Will definitely look at the first option. Thanks for all your responses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spikep]

Rolex wanted to replace the crystal on my recently serviced 16610. I declined, and to this day I can’t see a defect. Go with option number one, the watch will look perfect.

[Rrpdc]

Thought crowns were typically replaced at service and they have very low threshold for replacement of crystal with any scratches or nicks. You prob can’t go wrong with either one. Negotiate and go with best price.

[BroncoOne]

Go with the better price. Either watch is fine.

[Robf52]

Option 1; trust RSC to service correctly and completely.

[whited3]

Go for better condition. Replacement parts carry little to no meaning here

[helloworldies]

Option 2 the newer watch as long as it's in top condition

[smym18]

You often can’t even tell a crystal is scratched and Rolex will make you change it. Doesn’t necessarily mean anything bad happened.

[Seddyspaghetti]

Id probably go with option 2 and service it at RSC myself when needed. It’s cheaper and I prefer a newer watch.

[sunnygps]

For what it’s worth, I was buying a 5 digit watch from one of the grey dealers and had the option of buying one with RSC service or the other without, but 4 or so years younger. Both were out of original warranty and were full set.

I asked the grey dealer which one would he recommended that I go with. I had similar concerns as you OP about the RSC serviced watch, etc. The grey dealer recommended the RSC serviced as it had already gone through the Rolex QC and was as good as new.

I did buy the RSC serviced one and it came with RSC service record and I know exactly what was done to the watch.

In my experience, RSC will replace the crystal, even if they find a very small chip, hardly noticeable by naked eye. Or, will recommend to replace it.

Go with what you feel comfortable with.

[The Kermit]

Option number one

[Minimalist]

It's all subjective...I'm the same, sometimes get carried away with the 'what if'. Option 1 watch could have been extremely well taken care of, but due to an unfortunate incident required some work...who knows, maybe option 2 watch has not been taken care of all that well...you know what I mean, it's just one of those things, you never really know. You've got to take the information in front of you and make an informed decision.

Based on the info you have provided I would be more inclined towards option 1, the watch has been to RSC and they have the technique to polish the watch back to original and will come with a 2 year warranty, so if you have any issues you can take it back. But then at the same time I don't mind getting a watch that is in original condition if it looks good. You need to see both watches and go from there. Either way I don't think you will go wrong. With option 2 you will probably less hurt when you put some scratches of your own on it because it had some to start...HTH

Regards,
M

[fskywalker]

Option #1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tools]

I would go for option 2, if it is a good price.

These watches are 5 years apart and should not be priced the same. It is likely that the old watch is expecting you to pick up the price of the service. This brings up the "why" would a relatively new watch need a full service to begin with.

Granted, the older watch should be pristine after the service, but I would rather have had that choice.

[Geckobros]

I would go for option 2. I would want the newer watch still under warranty if the condition is to my liking.