So we talk about "Unpolished"???

[Clay]

Originally Posted by michel33

Cases are not the same.
5513/1680 do have thicker lugs than 16610/16600, this is a very good tip to know if a 1680/5513 has been over polished if you already own a 16610/16600.

You are comparing a Sea Dweller to a Sub...I am comparing a Sea Dweller to a Sea Dweller...

[michel33]

Originally Posted by Clay

You are comparing a Sea Dweller to a Sub...I am comparing a Sea Dweller to a Sea Dweller...

I was comparing a 5513/1680 Sub case to a 16610 sub case: thicker lugs on the 5513/1680.

16800 Subs have thicker lugs than 16610 also: my 16610 I bought brand new has thinner lugs than my 16800. Not exactly the same case. My 16800 crown-guards are thicker too.

Same story with the Sea-dweller:

1665 has thicker lugs than 16660.

16660 has thicker lugs than 16600. The cases are not exactly the same, I saw that in flesh many times with friend's watches.

Sorry that I was not clear.

[Clay]

Originally Posted by michel33

I was comparing a 5513/1680 Sub case to a 16610 sub case: thicker lugs on the 5513/1680.

16800 Subs have thicker lugs than 16610 also: my 16610 I bought brand new has thinner lugs than my 16800. Not exactly the same case. My 16800 crown-guards are thicker too.

Same story with the Sea-dweller:

1665 has thicker lugs than 16660.

16660 has thicker lugs than 16600. The cases are not exactly the same, I saw that in flesh many times with friend's watches.

Sorry that I was not clear.

Now I understand. Thank you.

[TimeToGo]

Originally Posted by Renoir

Good stuff. I started that thread on VRF, had questions about what I was seeing and even about my 1.3 Gilt GMT.

What I find interesting as well is that I always thought those catalog photos were illustrations, I never looked at them that closely!

I saw that!

Great discussion!!

[SUBversive]

Most people, present company excluded of course, really wouldn't notice anyway.

[handsfull]

FWIW: The 16600 bottom lugs (5 and 7) are also asymmetrical, the 5 lug being slightly thinner than the 7. This is how the factory produced it, not from being polished by hand.

[vkychoo]

Given all the attention on symmetry of the lugs and crown guards, I'm going to inspect my steel table ruler to inspect the even ness and accuracy of the markers :) j/k

[gwozhog]

Originally Posted by SUBversive

Most people, present company excluded of course, really wouldn't notice anyway.

until they read this thread.

[SubKing]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

I am a firm believer in the idea that Rolex watches were sold to the public from the AD with asymmetric crown guards and/or lugs. Whether this asymmetry is a result of a polish at the factory or the AD is up for debate. I think it helps to understand that in the case of the Submariner, the watch was built for one purpose. Their in lies the tool watch concept. The idea that people 40 or 50 years later would measure lug thickness, crown guard asymmetry, and discuss dial variations while viewing images taken with a macro lens was not something they probably envisioned. It just makes the hobby that much more interesting.

Well said

[SubKing]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

I am a firm believer in the idea that Rolex watches were sold to the public from the AD with asymmetric crown guards and/or lugs. Whether this asymmetry is a result of a polish at the factory or the AD is up for debate. I think it helps to understand that in the case of the Submariner, the watch was built for one purpose. Their in lies the tool watch concept. The idea that people 40 or 50 years later would measure lug thickness, crown guard asymmetry, and discuss dial variations while viewing images taken with a macro lens was not something they probably envisioned. It just makes the hobby that much more interesting.

Well said

On my 1680 one of my lugs is very thin compared to the others, as well as the crown guards.
I was wondering all of this myself. Glad to know it probably came from the factory like this