ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

rocco1109 · 6 November 2008, 05:46 AM

The first SUBMARINER-DATE to use 904L steel was the reference 168000. I don't know when it was used in other models.

Here is a picture of my R serial (1987) 168000 along side my 8.2M 16800 (with the crappy 316L steel).

Just look how much better the 904L steel looks compared to the 316L. It's HIGHLY noticeable, right? Well isn't it?

jnewell · 6 November 2008, 11:45 AM

'bsolutely. Send the lowly 16800 to me. I'll cover postage.

Incurable · 6 November 2008, 12:34 PM

Compared to some 'lesser' watches I own, I will admit that the 'luster' of my stainless Rolexes are much more 'luxurious'. Even the brushed finish parts look rich. There is a darker element (carbon?) to the Rolex. The others look whiter w/no character or depth to the sheen. The Rolex just looks elegant. Whether that's the steel or the method of finishing, I don't know. Just some personal observations. As for Will's pic... no I don't see the diff.

cody p · 6 November 2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incurable

For the record, I don't view this as an obsessive and useless query. I view it more as fact finding. The only problem is, the facts are hard to substantiate w/Rolex being so tight lipped. Hearsay and opinions are plentiful, facts not so much...

yes, hearsay and (unsubstantiated) opinions abound on this and other like forums.

6 November 2008, 11:45 AM	#32
jnewell "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Bahston Posts: 127	'bsolutely. Send the lowly 16800 to me. I'll cover postage. __________________ 1680 Submariner ~ 5513 Submariner ~ 16710 GMT Master II ~ 145.00.22 Speedmaster Professional ~ 2531.80 Seamaster Professional ~ Marathon TSAR

6 November 2008, 12:34 PM	#33
Incurable "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Pat Location: PNW Watch: your P's and Q's Posts: 2,549	Compared to some 'lesser' watches I own, I will admit that the 'luster' of my stainless Rolexes are much more 'luxurious'. Even the brushed finish parts look rich. There is a darker element (carbon?) to the Rolex. The others look whiter w/no character or depth to the sheen. The Rolex just looks elegant. Whether that's the steel or the method of finishing, I don't know. Just some personal observations. As for Will's pic... no I don't see the diff. __________________ Rolex GMT Master II 16710 (Blk/Blk) Rolex Explorer 114270 Sinn 356 Sa Flieger Limes Endurance 1Tausend Too many others... #2592 It may seem like I'm doing nothing but, at a cellular level, I'm actually quite busy...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

6 November 2008, 05:46 AM	#31
rocco1109 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Real Name: Will Location: Colorado USA Posts: 556	The first SUBMARINER-DATE to use 904L steel was the reference 168000. I don't know when it was used in other models. Here is a picture of my R serial (1987) 168000 along side my 8.2M 16800 (with the crappy 316L steel). Just look how much better the 904L steel looks compared to the 316L. It's HIGHLY noticeable, right? Well isn't it?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)