Should I be worried?

[sandalgirl]

After spending much time "lurking" about on this forum, I finally went ahead and purchased a pre-owned Ladies DateJust model 69163 from a local, trusted jeweler. The watch had no papers or boxes. The jeweler popped off the bracelet to show me the serial numbers and provided me with the serial # info on the receipt. D028 and a number beginning with 9HTxxxx. She said my watch is circa 1991. It has "original Rolex design" and "Stainless Steel" on the case back...indicative of a watch made pre-mid 1990's *thank you Rolex forum members for that info* But here is what concerns me: the D028 seems to indicate a watch made in 2004-05. I know that the Rolex date/numbering system can be confusing because Rolex used letters concurrently but I think there is a huge difference between the case back info and the actual serial #. The face of the watch is a pearl color, has stick numerals, smooth gold bezel and 2 tone jubilee band. The number on the band corresponds, according to the serial #, to a two-tone 18k band. I will go back to the jeweler tomorrow and express my concern---but before I do, I wonder if any of you think I have something to be concerned about. Trying to decipher the Rolex serial number dating code is confounding. I didn't think it was appropriate to post the entire serial number on this public posting, but will gladly do so via pm if anyone thinks they can shed some light on this. Btw: I am simultaneously elated when I look at my wrist, and then a little sickened thinking this isn't the read deal. Thanks to anyone who reads this and has some insight. Donna

[RRGHOST1]

Can you give us some pics ? You are correct with the serial number starting D would be circa 04-05. Maybe other members might be able to shed some light on the 9HTxxxx number also.

[Goodwatch]

Welcome Donna. I've moved this thread to another section, it will perhaps help to get some answers to your query.

[Christiaan]

Can you post pics? This may help us help you.
I might question if the case is a replacement case from Rolex. The only way to get to the bottom of this issue would be to send it to Rolex RSC for a look over...they will tell you about anything that isn't authentic or correct for this watch.

[MortgageGuy]

Yes, we need some pics and then the experts can chime in and help you out, unfortunatelt I am not one of them

[sandalgirl]

Here's a photo. Thanks. Donna

[sandalgirl]

I zoomed the camera on the watch to heighten the detail, but it looks as if I've distorted it somewhat, as well. Overall, the watch looks normal...size is fine, cyclops is exactly as I've seen at AD.

[CoopJr]

This watch could have had the bracelet replaced. These jubilees do stretch out and the band in the picture appears to fit the watch well like it's a factory replacement. It all looks/seems OK to me by this one picture.

[bayerische]

I have never seen a dial like that, show the caseback.

[chiko323]

Originally Posted by bayerische

I have never seen a dial like that, show the caseback.

By the look of things it doesn't look good. I can't find the reference nr either...

+1 The dial is quite unusual

[The GMT Master]

Agreed, never seen a Jubilee dial like that

[bayerische]

OK, found the reference, but still, this watch looks odd.

[CoopJr]

Brozeks reference book lists a model 69163 as a Datejust with a 2135 movement. 2135 movement also listed as 20mm in diameter so that would put it in the lady's range of sizes.

[CoopJr]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Agreed, never seen a Jubilee dial like that

Me neither. The "T SWISS MADE T" would indicate a tritium dial but it looks like there is some sort of embossment that I've never seen.

This is about all of the that I have.

[denzo]

sorry - the dial looks all wrong and the cyclops looks not too good either.

please show caseback and bracelet back markings

[chiko323]

With all the info here I'd say best case senario is that you have some kind of aftermarket dial. Another thing I just noticed is that something seems weird about the crown. I might just be seeing things, but it doesnt look right to me.

[sandalgirl]

I am sending a photo with no zoom. When viewed with the naked eye, there is no embossing...it only appears when I magnify the photo. The case back says "original Rolex design" and stainless steel.
Pictures next. Thanks

[CoopJr]

Originally Posted by sandalgirl

I am sending a photo with no zoom. When viewed with the naked eye, there is no embossing...it only appears when I magnify the photo. The case back says "original Rolex design" and stainless steel.
Pictures next. Thanks

Pictures of the clasp blades would be a help

[sandalgirl]

Photos....

[train-time]

The dial looks like a jubilee style.

[CoopJr]

Originally Posted by sandalgirl

Photos....

Any way to post larger versions of these?

[Tools]

You have me confused...

Your watch looks fine for a 90's ladies TT Datejust and the tritium dial fits that era; the corresponding model number and bracelet number should be for a TT Ladies DJ w/Jubilee, and you state that they are...

However D028, and then 9HTxxxx are meaningless in the context that you are using them..

I think that there may be a mistake with transcribing the serial number.. (or perhaps I have a brain lock) If you want to get to the bottom of this, you need to take the bracelet off and ensure that you have a 7 digit serial number beginning with a letter.

[chiko323]

Your right, the normal pics make it look more promising, but it is still strange that the dial close up looks like that.

[sandalgirl]

the bracelet number 625230( or D? hard to read!).18 and S10 appears above the bracelet number. I have seen watches that look like this one...the face doesn't appear painted. Do you think the watch is unusual looking for a 1991 watch? Are the stick hour markers unusual? The cyclops? I know the smooth bezel gives it a different look...is that an after market add on or was it a choice in bezel back in the day? The bracelet appears to be in great shape given the age of the watch. The numbers on my sales receipt are D028 and 9HT1611...Model 69163 circa 1991. Perhaps I assumed the D028 and the 9HT numbers were serial numbers when in fact they could be the jewelers stock numbers? The watch is clean, with some minor scratching on the clasp as well as some scratching on the crystal, near 12 o'clock. Thanks for your help. My stomach is beginning to unknot, just a bit! Donna

[Tools]

Originally Posted by sandalgirl

the bracelet number 625230( or D? hard to read!).18 and S10 appears above the bracelet number. I have seen watches that look like this one...the face doesn't appear painted. Do you think the watch is unusual looking for a 1991 watch? Are the stick hour markers unusual? The cyclops? I know the smooth bezel gives it a different look...is that an after market add on or was it a choice in bezel back in the day? The bracelet appears to be in great shape given the age of the watch. The numbers on my sales receipt are D028 and 9HT1611...Model 69163 circa 1991. Perhaps I assumed the D028 and the 9HT numbers were serial numbers when in fact they could be the jewelers stock numbers? The watch is clean, with some minor scratching on the clasp as well as some scratching on the crystal, near 12 o'clock. Thanks for your help. My stomach is beginning to unknot, just a bit! Donna

the watch looks good... the numbers on your receipt are meaningless for this discussion..

a 69163 means this..

691xx - Ladies Datejust
xxx6x - smooth bezel
xxxx3 - Two Tone
Everything is OK here..

Caseback and dial put it in the tritiuim era (before 1998)

On the bracelet the part number is good.. 18 means 18k gold and the S10 clasp code is, roughly, October 1994

So, you should be looking for a serial number that begins with S or W and is followed by 6 digits.

[sandalgirl]

Larry, Thank you so much. Can I remove the bracelet myself to check for the serial number? If so, how? A paper clip? And, once removed, will I be able to reattach it to the watch? I am fairly handy.
Donna

[CPCC]

Cyclops is concerning. Not much in the way of zoom, or was it due to the photo.
It should zoom the date rather well.
Dont own any ladies watches, but all of my Rolex dont have anything on the back.

[sandalgirl]

Larry:One more question: if you were me, would you send it to Rolex for an inspection or to a good watch maker? The store I bought it from has been around forever and is reputable. I liked the watch because it didn't have the fluted bezel and for the not bright white face--and it was in my price range...I paid $2300 for it. I will sleep better once I see the serial number.

[globalmedia33]

You can bring it to a local Rolex Authorized dealer in the area and they can look at it for you, no need to send it to Rolex.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by sandalgirl

Larry:One more question: if you were me, would you send it to Rolex for an inspection or to a good watch maker? The store I bought it from has been around forever and is reputable. I liked the watch because it didn't have the fluted bezel and for the not bright white face--and it was in my price range...I paid $2300 for it. I will sleep better once I see the serial number.

Good price, good looking watch.. I don't think that I would worry too much about this... I simply do not see anything wrong with this watch..

You could take the bracelet off with a paper clip if it has holes in the sides of the case.. otherwise, you need to collapse those spring-bars through the slots in the back with either a correct tool or a very narrow screwdriver. You only need to undo the 6 o'clock side as that is where the serial will be..

Here is a short tutorial on a men's model, but the procedures are the same for a ladies..

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=111743