Help with a 1601

[disco_nug]

Hi all

Long time reader, first time poster.

Am tempted by a 1601 (serial code dates to 1972/3) and have reached the end of my due diligence, and was hoping for some more experienced wisdom.

Hopefully some entertainment...

Key points of puzzlement for me:
- 62510 H clasp with RS code, but on a 6251 bracelet with 55 end links. Perhaps replacement clasp?

- date wheel - numerals seem thick, but then have seen different types

- case back - thicker lettering, but then have seen some say it ok?

Selection of pics below/attached (hope this works)

Thanks in advance rwf

[Yachtbuoy]

I'm going to give you a summary of the advice I received and read from these forums (I have a '77 1603). Obviously my opinion/reading of the room etc. etc.

Datejusts from this era are true workhorses, and they were chopped and changed sometimes on a whim. Coupled with the fact that there are A LOT of variations on the configuration based on who made the dial when, the phase of the moon etc etc. means that it's really hard to say for certain whether a Datejust from this particular era are "all original or whatever". In any case, it doesn't seem to impact value because vintage Datejusts aren't considered as valuable as the professional models of the era. Not saying they aren't as good (I personally love mine).

Now, some of your pictures (like the movement) are a bit small to make a judgement. However, it's really not unusual to see a mismatch of parts in the bracelet (mine has the opposite, where the clasp code is older than the bracelet), could be due to repairs with whatever parts were on-hand at the time. The concept of "originality" is a more recent concept, and owners of Rolex watches from the time probably would be confused to why people are so anal about it these days. I personally wouldn't worry about that too much.

From what I can see (and with the limitations of the pictures), it looks fine to me. The only thing I wish I could see was the engraving between the lugs. Also I'd be interested in whether the seconds hand hacks, given this feature was added around the time that Datejust was made. There's a lot of variation regarding the Datejusts so if you've done a lot of research already, then that's probably all right then. Depending on the service history, you'd want to get the watch gaskets replaced anyway at the very least.

Personally, I like the Datejusts of this era and there's definitely an embracing of the ton of variety that exists with this reference. There's something cool about the fact that these watches were truly daily workhorses and they often show signs of abuse and neglect.

The last piece of advice would be to "buy the seller", so do they have a reputation of selling to others, have people dealt with them before, etc.

[disco_nug]

Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed response!

[Tools]

Good looking watch.

Definitely a '72

Yes, clasp is a later era (2010) in excellent appearing condition.

There is nothing wrong with replacing worn or damaged parts on the watch or bracelet.

[lhendrickson]

Bracelet is correct, clasp is later. I really can't add much more than what YachtBuoy said above other than echo this sentiment: mismatched bracelets do not matter with Datejusts and value. I know how you feel about everything being "just so" as I feel that way when collecting.
I myself have a 1972 ref. 1601 "Wide Boy" that has a service case back and a later bracelet from July of 1977. Value isn't changed with the later bracelet, but I like the idea of a correct bracelet. Either way, it doesn't matter as I adore this watch.