16710 Advice

[Smols]

Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the vintage section, as it relates to a 5 digit model but doesn't really fit the definition of 'vintage'.

I've been lusting after a 16710 for a while now, and I noticed this one that I quite liked the look of:

https://regaltimelondon.com/rolex/ro...service-papers

However one thing I noticed is that it's listed as a 2006 model, but looks like it has drilled lugs, am I right in thinking that for a 2006 model this should not be the case? The dealer has really good reviews, so I'm sure it's probably just a typo or something and I'll clarify this with them if I decide to go and take a look. I thought I'd check here first though whether my thinking was correct (as I'm far from an expert) and also if there is anything else I should be looking out for with this model?

[116510lv]

Firstly, welcome to the rabbit hole of 16710's - an absolute beauty of a watch and I've owned several with finally settling with a 16700.

Drilled lugs ended in 2003... Some will say the watch probably sat in the ad shelf / safe for 3 years but I doubt that..

11k is pricey, watchfinder have them a tad cheaper and there are some decent ones on eBay with the eBay genuine programme thing.

Good luck buddy

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

[james_turk]

Not a great example in my opinion.

Looks like it's just come back from an RSC service based on the stickers on the case sides, and UK RSC have done their classic, and annihilated the lugs.

Based on the bracelet not having solid end links, it seems to be a 1990's example (SEL came in 2000). If it is a 1990's example, it's also got a service replacement bezel, as opposed to the (nicer IMO) serif font bezel it would have originally come with.

Probably was an honest, well worn watch, that RSC butchered. Not where I'd put my money.

[jamesbondOO7]

It is missing about half of the material of the bottom lugs.

[Smols]

Originally Posted by 116510lv

Firstly, welcome to the rabbit hole of 16710's - an absolute beauty of a watch and I've owned several with finally settling with a 16700.

Drilled lugs ended in 2003... Some will say the watch probably sat in the ad shelf / safe for 3 years but I doubt that..

11k is pricey, watchfinder have them a tad cheaper and there are some decent ones on eBay with the eBay genuine programme thing.

Good luck buddy

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Cheers, looks like I'll be venturing further down that rabbit hole then!

[Smols]

Originally Posted by james_turk

Not a great example in my opinion.

Looks like it's just come back from an RSC service based on the stickers on the case sides, and UK RSC have done their classic, and annihilated the lugs.

Based on the bracelet not having solid end links, it seems to be a 1990's example (SEL came in 2000). If it is a 1990's example, it's also got a service replacement bezel, as opposed to the (nicer IMO) serif font bezel it would have originally come with.

Probably was an honest, well worn watch, that RSC butchered. Not where I'd put my money.

Thanks, totally missed that it didn't have solid end links tbh. Wasn't aware what I was looking for with the other things you've mentioned, so that's good to know

[Smols]

Originally Posted by jamesbondOO7

It is missing about half of the material of the bottom lugs.

Yeah, I did think they looked a little thin in the pictures, especially the right hand side

[karleone]

The watch is over polished (very thin lugs) and it has a service bezel insert (should be a serif insert for the era), a luminova service dial and hands (they should be tritium).
Plus the watch is certainly not a 2006.
Hard pass

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by Smols

Yeah, I did think they looked a little thin in the pictures, especially the right hand side

Crown side lugs are normally thinner than non-crown by design.

These references require in-person inspection to properly evaluate. I think pictures are entirely misleading. That notwithstanding, the problem here, as others have pointed out is lug holes and lack of solid end-links. Features for that year just don’t add up.

[0nly5iv3Digits]

Originally Posted by Gearjockey

Crown side lugs are normally thinner than non-crown by design.

These references require in-person inspection to properly evaluate. I think pictures are entirely misleading. That notwithstanding, the problem here, as others have pointed out is lug holes and lack of solid end-links. Features for that year just don’t add up.

Correct

[GrailTime]

Find a dealer you trust, give them your requirements and budget and let them go find you one.

[GrailTime]

Holes case, so would have been made a few years before 2006. Must have sat in safe or just not sold for a few years, for the papers to say 2006. Unless there has been some trickery.

Either way, avoid it. Better to have something where everything lines up.

And as others have said, those lugs look like Dracula's teeth.

[watchnwine]

I'd echo what others have said. It's polished (a bit heavily I would say) and the heavy chamfers have been carved to probably cover some deeper dings. Holes case ended mid 2003. The bracelet dates pre 2000. It's also got a modern thin font insert which isn't as charming (to my eye) and the period correct fat-font serif insert. I'd pass but I'm picky. Nice examples without papers (a service paper is nice but it's not with papers) should be around $10k US.

[luk4s83]

It's not 2006. Not only over polished but also the polishing job is pretty bad - the lugs are uneven. Definitely a no go for me.

[PepsiBezel]

Originally Posted by james_turk

Not a great example in my opinion.

Looks like it's just come back from an RSC service based on the stickers on the case sides, and UK RSC have done their classic, and annihilated the lugs.

Based on the bracelet not having solid end links, it seems to be a 1990's example (SEL came in 2000). If it is a 1990's example, it's also got a service replacement bezel, as opposed to the (nicer IMO) serif font bezel it would have originally come with.

Probably was an honest, well worn watch, that RSC butchered. Not where I'd put my money.

I just want to echo this comment. I wonder if this is a well-worn 1990s example that was serviced in 2006? Hard to say as the papers aren’t pictured, but many things seem off, and the polishing is rough (you can also see the stretch in the bracelet link gaps).

Lots of great 16710s out there, but I don’t think this example is one of them. I’d pass and keep looking.

Best of luck, the 16710 is truly the best Rolex of all-time!

[Smols]

Thanks all. Learned a lot of new information from this thread.

Will give this one a miss anyway.