The 1680: a few questions...

[J!m]

So the 1680 is a special watch to me. I love the look of the high crystal and cyclops. The no-nonsense design that is truly a "form following function" exercise. '69 would be my birthday watch (III 69 to be exact) and an appropriate 1680 has been a dream of mine for a long time. Based in the cost:salary ratio I currently suffer from, I expect it will remain elusive for the rest if my life...

But as nice as that intro may be, I have a couple questions.

1) when was the 1680 introduced? I read that 1965 was the first year; however I have never seen one older than 1969 which I have also heard is the first year. Not a big deal either way, but if my birth year watch was also the first year of production, that would obviously be super-cool!

2) the bezel. I saw a particularly spectacular example once where the little note was included with the other original papers bragging about the bezel function requiring downward pressure to allow rotation. I have never seen any early bezels with construction differing from the standard bi-directional snap together with thin spring washer between... Am I missing something? Did they have another design for this at some point before the ratcheting bezel was introduced much later?

I guess it doesn't matter-I'll probably never own this watch but it us fun to dream...

[Beaumont Miller II]

'69 was the first year.
The bidirectional friction bezel is standard on the 1680.

[SUBversive]

It is a fantastic watch. I agree with all you said. Love the high hat. The only knock if I can say that is the older bracelet is lacking of course compared to new. I've been meaning to have a Michael young tune up since forever but never get around to that.

But keep hope alive you may get one .... Takes a lot of research and possibly finding a seller that will allow a down payment / payment plan so you don't have to do it all at once.

[Paul]

Who would have dreamed that the Submariner with the silly stick-up-in-the-air crystal would gain such a cult following over time ?
Add a line or two of red text to the dial and desirability just leaps ahead again.
I've never even seen a 1680 in the wild - only web surfing and books - and I want one .... badly.

And although I'm the original ... set the target ... develop SMART objectives ... visualise the goal .... kinda guy, the cost/salary ratio thing rings true for me too.
Still, never say never Jim - a vintage Rolex that someone's worked very hard to get is the best one of all I say

[omitohud]

Jim save up n get one already. It seems there is a resurgence in this reference lately. I just saw one online b&p for 23k. That's closing in on drsd price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mike]

Yeah, I heard of 1965 as well, but to my knowledge low 2mil seems to be a starting point. Perhaps there were some prototypes earlier than that.

The ratcheting bezel made it's debut with the 16800. 1680s were,as mentioned, bidirectional friction fit.

[marcello pisani]

untill now with a case number from 1965 ( btw confirmed by Geneva ).
the watch is in Italy and has a special " long f " matt dial with ring but no minute markers :



the lucky owner ( an old italian collector ) didn't replace the service insert with a correct " long 5 " ... too bad !!

[J!m]

Wow great info guys! Thank you!

So the bezel has always been the same as I know it. I thought maybe there was another design at some point.

Also good to clarify the 1680 was official for my birthday! Of course that does not make it any more affordable...

Thanks for the info! This has driven my desire even higher!

I almost wish I was born later- the white dials are quite a bit more attainable than the reds.

[Robbyvm]

this could have been your '69 birthyear Sub... but, it's on my wrist

good luck with the hunt, the anticipation is almost as good as the actual catch !

[J!m]

Thank you so much for rubbing my nose in it!

[Beaumont Miller II]

Marcello I find the prototype dial from 1965 to be very interesting.

When you study the dial, it appears that it has much in common with the Mk2 red dial. I am specifically referring to the coronet and the placement of the "L" underneath it, the open 6's, the thin font, the SCOC text layout, and the fact that the "f" does not go over the "t" in ft.

I find it interesting that the prototype dial has more in common with the MK2 dial rather than the Mk1 dial that preceded it, with its closed 6's, slightly different SCOC text layout, and the "f" going over the "t" in feet.

Any thoughts on this?

[adam78]

Although the friction-turn bezel was used on plexi-crystal Subs, most that have survived seem to have worn in such as way to either freely turn or be quite stiff. Or perhaps the replacement springs are not quite like those used originally? Of my three (5513, 1680, 7610/0), only the Tudor has a bezel functioning seemingly like it did originally (I really need to press down to turn it).

Or maybe it's just me...

[J!m]

Yeah, my limited experience with the bezels is similar- either really easy, or impossible to turn.... I was thinking maybe they had some sort of toothed design for example- maybe like the Sinn design or something.

[adam78]

Originally Posted by J!m

Yeah, my limited experience with the bezels is similar- either really easy, or impossible to turn.... I was thinking maybe they had some sort of toothed design for example- maybe like the Sinn design or something.

No, nor those little sapphire pebbles, causing the clicks while turning, that the Omega SM300 has.

[J!m]

Ok thanks for that clarification.

[marcello pisani]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Marcello I find the prototype dial from 1965 to be very interesting.

When you study the dial, it appears that it has much in common with the Mk2 red dial. I am specifically referring to the coronet and the placement of the "L" underneath it, the open 6's, the thin font, the SCOC text layout, and the fact that the "f" does not go over the "t" in ft.

I find it interesting that the prototype dial has more in common with the MK2 dial rather than the Mk1 dial that preceded it, with its closed 6's, slightly different SCOC text layout, and the "f" going over the "t" in feet.

Any thoughts on this?

the watch very well " live " some years ago.
it has a quite interesting finish , not properly matt and neither gilt : I would define this finish a sort of " half-matt " ( something already seen some years before in the mk1 SCOC dial for PCG 1675 ).
this " hybrid " finish is without the final coat of transparent paint but it's not " rough " as standard matt dials ( for example the ones you have in 1680 or 1665 ) but almost flat.
btw you are right : it reminds more a mk2 dial than a long f : the question is that we have supposed ( most likely mistaking ) that " long 5 " is older than what we define " mk2 ".

[Beaumont Miller II]

Great to hear your thoughts on that.
I kind of considered that as a possibility as both the Mk1 and Mk2 are seen in a tight serial number range and compared to the Mk3 seen less often.

[Bk100]

Iii - 69

[Bk100]

-bk

[J!m]

Damn Really cool "chocolate" dial too... I have a "dark chocolate" dial on my Speedmaster Mk II that is cool but nowhere near that brown.

The 1680 is on hold again, because I found a really nice 9411 (black) that the more I study, the more I realize is a sweet wtch in it's own right. Really amazing condition too- looks like one service since it was new in 1978. Low bracelet wear and it appears to have an original 1680 crystal- the REALLY tall one, not the common service one (I'll be saving that for my eventual 1680!!)

Check my other thread for a (upside down!) photo. I was ready to go for a 1680 but got this instead... Still waiting!

PS the 9411 bezel is frozen so I need to address that

[Spirtnoye]

This thread is excellent. I, too, have been looking for just the right white 1680 at the right price, so all of this info and stories really help me out and always re-ignites the fire. Probably won't happen this quarter as I need to fly back to the US to see some family this summer. Luckily, the dollar and euro are close enough that it doesn't make too much of a difference in prices, but still. Excellent photos and words. Hopefully you find your '69 before too long! I'd take one of any year that wasn't completely trashed!

[J!m]

I suppose if I truly focused on the 1680 (only) I could easily afford it with the money I have tied up in other watches (Tag Heuer 2000, Planet Ocean, Speedy II, 9411; and a Seamaster 300 I have been collecting parts for about five years now, and some other projects I can't even remember) but I love so many styles that I have to wait for the right piece at the right price (case in point: this sweet Snowflake!) and jump.

Fortunately, there are a lot more 1680's than Snowflakes and I have no regrets whatsoever on this purchase!

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by marcello pisani

btw you are right : it reminds more a mk2 dial than a long f : the question is that we have supposed ( most likely mistaking ) that " long 5 " is older than what we define " mk2 ".

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Great to hear your thoughts on that.
I kind of considered that as a possibility as both the Mk1 and Mk2 are seen in a tight serial number range and compared to the Mk3 seen less often.

Interesting.

Could it be that two different places made the dials so that mark I and II were produced in relatively close proximity with each other but slightly stuttered? Then the place making the mark II dials replaced the dial look with the Mk III because the Mk I's thicker lettering was more legible? This would explain why the Mk II and III have the paint defect and the Mk I does not, as it wouldn't be using the same batches of paint.

Another potential option: The Mk III replaced the Mk I and they did use the same paint batches at both places and ended up with tropical dials.

Another option: The printing mold (or whatever they used) made to print the first round of dials breaks for one reason or another, so they use the prototype mold to replace it so they can keep up with productivity and demand. They very quickly create a second mold from the prototype as well to increase output (Mk III). This would also explain why the Mk III looks a bit less refined ().

Another option: They make a nice looking production mold (mk I) and the piece is so popular that they quickly use their prototype mold to keep up, but the older mold wasn't built as well so it breaks relatively quickly and is replaced with the Mk III, as does the Mk I and III eventually as well. Eventually they make better molds and production runs with consistent Mks are made.

I'm sure there are many many more options...

I think the tropical paint change is a confounding variable for the Mk II coming before the Mk I. If the Mk I followed the Mk II, the Mk I would have the tropical and not Mk II. Mk II and III would need to be sequential in some way unless there were multiple bad batches of paint. If Mk II and III were made at the same factory, then the Mk II came first and then Mk III, but that still leaves the Mk I being made somewhere else most likely, and leaves the possibility of it being first and not sequential. If Mk II and III are being made at the same time for awhile via different factories, then the Mk I preceded the bad batch of color and precedes both Mk II and III. Does my logic make sense?

Was there three factories? Then this gets even more convoluted!

What do people's archival data on the Mk Is, IIs, and IIIs, and serials show as the earliest pieces collectively?



-Q

[Nycturbovr6]

Sell whatever watches you are not attached to anymore and get your Grail 1680

[Robbyvm]

My (supposed) II '69 MKI has serial 2.09xxxx I did'nt see an earlier serial here on the forum exept for the '65 Marcello posted...

[J!m]

Originally Posted by Nycturbovr6

Sell whatever watches you are not attached to anymore and get your Grail 1680

I think I might have to sell a car too based on eBay prices for first gen watches.

[waiting]

Itching for a 1680 as well! Sorry to go off topic, but did the 1680 ever come with the top hat crystal sans cyclops? I like the look of no cyclops.

[Robbyvm]

Negative, Tophat = cyclops

[waiting]

Originally Posted by Robbyvm

Negative, Tophat = cyclops

Thank you sir

[Loevhagen]

Originally Posted by Robbyvm

Negative, Tophat = cyclops

Yupp. :)