Daytona 16520 Patrizzi: which series?

[Toutoune]

Hello everyone,

Does anyone have a link or the FINAL answer as to which Daytona 16520 can be labelled as the Patrizzi ones? I have read articles over a long period of time and from different sources and it appears that everyone has a different answer. If I remember well S, T and W are but maybe U and V are too. This is hard too hard for me...

I can’t figure out if it is because we are still « discovering » the Patrizzis or if everyone wants his/her watch to be one (wouhouuu so trendy!) so they make up stories about it when in fact it’s another alteration due to time/corrosion/god himself/oven on thermostat 7.

Thanks for your answers

T

[rootbeer7]

The above is about right, but and it’s a big one, it either is or isn’t! Many/most in those series’ have no dial change whatsoever. If the dial hasn’t changed it’s not a Patrizzi despite what a dealer may tell you!!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Toutoune

Hello everyone,

Does anyone have a link or the FINAL answer as to which Daytona 16520 can be labelled as the Patrizzi ones? I have read articles over a long period of time and from different sources and it appears that everyone has a different answer. If I remember well S, T and W are but maybe U and V are too. This is hard too hard for me...

I can’t figure out if it is because we are still « discovering » the Patrizzis or if everyone wants his/her watch to be one (wouhouuu so trendy!) so they make up stories about it when in fact it’s another alteration due to time/corrosion/god himself/oven on thermostat 7.

Thanks for your answers

T

Well in the real world thats all the so called Patrizzis is a fault in the dial pigment.

[kzm40]

My W discoloured, it also has the inverted 6.

[Gaijin]

My T did not have it. Black dial.

[1watch]

Funny how in the crazy world of watch collecting, a manufacturing fault creates a premium price to those in technically better "condition".

[Toutoune]

From what you all guy said it looks that there is no real answer, it’s more on a case by case basis...

I find it a bit dangerous because I guess lots of people could pay the premium for nothing or manual alteration to darken the counters...

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well in the real world thats all the so called Patrizzis is a fault in the dial pigment.

Originally Posted by Toutoune

From what you all guy said it looks that there is no real answer, it’s more on a case by case basis...

I find it a bit dangerous because I guess lots of people could pay the premium for nothing or manual alteration to darken the counters...

Comes with the territory in collecting anything really. Rarity is valued, so when a person or group discovers they have something uncommon for whatever reason, an echo chamber ensues within the collecting community creating hysteria for said item. The whole "patrizzi" thing is marketing genius, because it brings an exotic romanticism to what in effect is just a watch with a rusted dial due to manufacturing defect. If someone chooses to get caught up in the hype, caveat emptor.

[golfsc]

If you listen to some experts only watches from 1994-1995 with the Mark IV dials are Patrizzi. My understanding is that this is because these were the ones he had in his collection.

I think time has shown that many other series will develop the Patrizzi dial.

Here is a picture of my U series (1997-1998) that is definitely demonstrating the Patrizzi dial.

[Mikel212]

At least this defect is rare and more importantly gives the watch some charm. I never understood the crazed (cracked) dial in 16660 Sea Dweller. I had one and it just look like I cracked the crystal every time I looked at the time.

[1665fan]

Yes it can be in all those serials, from my experience W series and non inverted 6 are the most common to turn and turn a nice brown color. I used to own a w8 I believe that looks similar to that nice U series in the above pic....once you own one you realize why they can command a higher price.

[1watch]

Originally Posted by golfsc

If you listen to some experts only watches from 1994-1995 with the Mark IV dials are Patrizzi. My understanding is that this is because these were the ones he had in his collection.

I think time has shown that many other series will develop the Patrizzi dial.

Here is a picture of my U series (1997-1998) that is definitely demonstrating the Patrizzi dial.

That's a really interesting point you make. It makes me skeptical of the value premium these models are commanding. Has anyone ever been able to confirm the only years this varnish effect occurred was 94-95? By the appearances of your later W serial, it sure looks like it's doing the same color change on the subdial chapter rings. I wouldn't drop any premium for this affect on a dial during those so called Patrizzi years. Perhaps this happens to most black dialed Zenith models from '94 and later?

[77T]

I’m guessing some folks will never settle on one single set of criteria - and that is the risk of too much input.

For me, I simply go to the “source”.





Black dialed models with silvered totalizer surrounds were not properly zappon coated. This QC failure is most prominent in the 1993-95 production models. This is where it gets interesting - trying to pin it down to serial numbers.

Depending upon whose reference list you use, there are several ideas. Here’s just one -



The final complication is how easily the fakers can make this Patrizzi effect appear using oxidizing agents on otherwise stabile silvered totalizers from other eras.

So the bottom line (for me at least) is to only buy one of these from Osvaldo Patrizzi or Guido Mondani. None of the rest can give you 100% peace of mind.*


* One exception would be a known one-owner, fully documented 16520 with the Patrizzi effect that you are buying from the original owner.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[1watch]

Originally Posted by 77T

I’m guessing some folks will never settle on one single set of criteria - and that is the risk of too much input.

For me, I simply go to the “source”.





Black dialed models with silvered totalizer surrounds were not properly zappon coated. This QC failure is most prominent in the 1993-95 production models. This is where it gets interesting - trying to pin it down to serial numbers.

Depending upon whose reference list you use, there are several ideas. Here’s just one -



The final complication is how easily the fakers can make this Patrizzi effect appear using oxidizing agents on otherwise stabile silvered totalizers from other eras.

So the bottom line (for me at least) is to only buy one of these from Osvaldo Patrizzi or Guido Mondani. None of the rest can give you 100% peace of mind.*


* One exception would be a known one-owner, fully documented 16520 with the Patrizzi effect that you are buying from the original owner.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

While I respect his expert opinion on the subject, there is a conflict of interest inherent in this and who's to say that was the only period of time the incorrect varnish was used on the totalizers? I would only believe it if documentation was produced by the source, Rolex. As a collector, this water is way too muddy to pay a premium for a discoloration effect. I believe the dial variant worth a significant premium of the 16520 series is the so-called "porcelain" floating cosmograph.

[77T]

Originally Posted by 1watch

While I respect his expert opinion on the subject, there is a conflict of interest inherent in this and who's to say that was the only period of time the incorrect varnish was used on the totalizers? I would only believe it if documentation was produced by the source, Rolex. As a collector, this water is way too muddy to pay a premium for a discoloration effect. I believe the dial variant worth a significant premium of the 16520 series is the so-called "porcelain" floating cosmograph.

There is no varnish involved. It was a galvanizing process gone wrong.

That is the essence of what I'm saying - don't buy any of these purported Patrizzi dialed watches unless you are an expert, get one from those two experts I mentioned, or make the rarest of barn finds I mentioned.

[1watch]

Originally Posted by 77T

There is no varnish involved. It was a galvanizing process gone wrong.

That is the essence of what I'm saying - don't buy any of these purported Patrizzi dialed watches unless you are an expert, get one from those two experts I mentioned, or make the rarest of barn finds I mentioned.

I guess who is to definitively say the galvanizing process error was limited to those series though? Just because Patrizzi discovered it, I still think it would have to be validated by Rolex to determine if it's isolated to those series or possibly could happen to other series legitimately. That's why I wouldn't spend big money on any "Patrizzi" model, slippery slope...

[77T]

I think you have some more research ahead...and don’t expect Rolex to shed any light on the subject.

But I agree you shouldn’t buy any Patrizzi dial Daytona’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[1watch]

Originally Posted by 77T

I think you have some more research ahead...and don’t expect Rolex to shed any light on the subject.

But I agree you shouldn’t buy any Patrizzi dial Daytona’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

If you're aware of an unbiased source of proof... I'm all ears. Otherwise, caveat emptor on a premium price for any of these references. I've collected watches for some time and am aware of oddities that seem all the rage only to cool off when new information is presented. I didn't say not to buy it if the look appeals to you, just skeptical in the absence of unbiased proof that these are worth the current market premium. When an expert writes a reference source and has the look named after pieces in his collection, that's quite a complement. However, it doesn't codify the extent to which this affect could legitimately occur.

[golfsc]

I agree that the only ones that really know the answer to this question is Rolex.

Earlier I posted these pics of the changes my U series Daytona has undergone over the past 10 years. If this isn't a Patrizzi dial then I don't know what is. I think these changes my watch has undergone are the very definition of the Patrizzi dial effect. To me this is proof that the U series should be included.

The only test to authenticate the dial should be is it a Zenith and did the sub dials change color.

[77T]

Originally Posted by golfsc

I agree that the only ones that really know the answer to this question is Rolex.



Earlier I posted these pics of the changes my U series Daytona has undergone over the past 10 years. If this isn't a Patrizzi dial then I don't know what is. I think these changes my watch has undergone are the very definition of the Patrizzi dial effect. To me this is proof that the U series should be included.



The only test to authenticate the dial should be is it a Zenith and did the sub dials change color.

I certainly agree a Zenith would be in any of the Patrizzi dialed Daytona’s because Rolex wasn’t making their own movements during the period these dials were inserted into the watches. But that is not the test - it is more detailed. It also involves inspecting the back of the dial for markings from a certain dial maker or two.

But first, let’s talk about your watch. It is possible a “U” s/n has a Patrizzi dial in it. But it is a narrow band of time. Can you help us with a couple of answers?

Has the watch always been a black dialed Daytona? In other words, did you or a prior owner swap a black dial into it?

Does the s/n of your Daytona start with U479****?
Don’t need to know the trailing **** digits - the first 3 digits after the “U” are what matters.

There were anomalies in 1997/98 with Gold Daytona’s - although those watches were Champagne dials it is possible some black dials were made.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[golfsc]

Don't think the dial has ever been replaced.

My Serial Number starts U535.

[77T]

So with that s/n I believe the only way to know for certain is to check the back of the dial. I lean towards your watch having a dial older than the midcase. I am guessing from your answer that you aren’t the original owner.

There have been many dial swaps done for personal taste over the years in the 16520 models.

Not something to do at this moment, it isn’t urgent and can wait until you have it serviced. Ask the watchmaker to take some close-up pictures.

What you’re looking for is a mark by Singer.



One without a “+” sign, and without the later decorations Singer added to dials after 1994.

Even accessing Rolex archives won’t really help. This was discussed in a Rolex Passion Report blog. Dials were updated and changed designs without detailed record keeping in the years before they brought dial making in-house.

Unfortunately, the Rolex archives are off limits and I agree the only 90% “sure bet” would be to see them. But also my guess is it will be hard for Rolex to show any records at all for each serial number and dial maker of the dial combinations that were delivered. So it’s never going to be 100%.

They probably have records of serial and reference number destinations, but lack the photo database of dials that were fitted on specific watches.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[1watch]

Now this is becoming educational and intriguing!

[Toutoune]

Originally Posted by 1watch

Now this is becoming educational and intriguing!

+1 on this one!

[jimbojim]

Hi all, does this only occur on all gold and all stainless steel Daytona or can is occur to a 2 tone also ? I have a 1996 2 tone W serial with black dial and gold sub dials - I have only ever worn it 3 times ! yes that`s correct - only very special occasions = 2 weddings and 1 funeral and yes I have heard all the jokes !!!! the rest of the time it sits in its box - I can not see ANY change in color at all ! Could that be because I never wear it ??
My daily watch is a 1991 Rolex 16233 2 tone with diamond dial or my Sandos all stainless day date with black diamond dial - Just curious.
Cheers
Jim

[jimbojim]

Hi all, another question if I may - the sub dials on my daytona are all gold, I can not find another with the same ? I have seen them with single gold lines and double gold lines around the sub dials BUT NOT all gold ? (In other words like the silver sub dial but gold instead) Does anyone know or has anyone seen one like mine ?
Any help would be appreciated
Merry Christmas to all
Jim

[1665fan]

Originally Posted by kzm40

My W discoloured, it also has the inverted 6.

W serial were never made with inverted 6 from the factory

[djgallo]

It looks like the Patrizzi dial so far has been attributed to the Serials N,T,S,and W.

Here is an article directed at the Patrizzi dial Daytonas.


https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-bl...l-daytona.html

[edhahn44]

On the different marks for the 16520: my understanding that this list is the widely accepted summary of the different variants of the 16520:

https://daytonainfo.watch/eras/zenith/#jp-carousel-22

I'm offered a N35series (clasp code: P10; sold: 1992; bracelet: 78360).

Does this sound correct? Cause I've also seen research indicating that only models up to N1series where produced in 1991 and the rest in 1994?

Pls see picture of the watch here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jTe...ew?usp=sharing