Is this a 4 or 5 digit Datejust?

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by 77T

Let’s assume the midcase is original. I am guessing the original DJ had a 'pie pan' dial. But there might have been a problem if the 1575 movement needed replacing sometime in the ‘80’s. That’s because the 3035 movement sits higher in the case by just under 1 mm. And because of the pie pan dial....that watchmaker replaced an original pie pan with that tapestry dial. That gave just enough room to fit a 3035 into the case without a lot of other bother.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sorry, didn't see this when I first replied. So a 3035 movement with a non-pie pan dial will definitely fit in a 1601 case? That was a question I had.

And of course the 7million serial is throwing me off, as that appears to be a 1981 build, more likely to be a 16013, and would jive with what we know of the watch's history.

Of course what you outline is certainly a possibility. Although my dad is sure that the dial was not changed when he serviced it in 2000. And I'm assuming if a new movement was needed at that time they might have put in a 3135?

There is a chance my grandpa got it serviced sometime in the 80s, sure, but that's very unlikely from what my dad remembers. He was the type to just put the watch away if it broke, as he didn't fully understand the value of a Rolex. Definitely not the type to pay to service a broken watch.

But this is all conversation. I asked them to have a service tech take a look at it one more time. If they confirm 1601, I doubt they'd screw it up a 2nd (or actually 3rd?) time, so I just get the watch back and take it to an independent. I'm just curious more than anything at this point. And I'd still like RSC to service it if possible, though that seems unlikely.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by 77T

All of my previous NY RSC quotes have included the caliber - but the last one was in 2018 so times do change…

Sorry I missed the point that they had sent multiple quotes before the convo’s with RSC.

My scenario was the only idea I had to explain how a 3035 ended up in a 1601 case - and the potential reason a 1601 didn’t have its elegant pie pan still in it.

Will you be letting them do the work? It seems future communication might not meet your expectations.

The benefit of an indie watchmaker is that you talk to the real deal at every step.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No worries! Well if they confirm it's a 1601, I won't have any choice as they will refuse to do the work.

If somehow they say they made a mistake and it's a 16013, I'm leaning towards them just doing the work as I originally approved. The communications issues and their initial mess-up is giving me pause, sure. If you have a 1601 case and you see a 3035 in there, most people on this forum could tell you it's not the original movement. The fact that a technician wouldn't even open the watch up or at least take a look at the caliber before writing up a full estimate (their version of things) or have a tech on staff that doesn't know a 3035 doesn't belong in a 1601 (the only other possible explanation for the initial estimate) doesn't inspire a ton of confidence. OTOH, RSC has tons and tons of satisfied customers and mistakes do happen. So I am leaning towards having them do the work, but I probably won't have that option anyway.

Massive irony here imo is that one of their required service items that I approved was replacing the entire midcase and caseback. So they'd be dropping an authentic 3035 with authentic dial into a new case anyway. But their rigid policy won't let them do that if it's indeed a 1601 case.

[77T]

If it’s 7mill# then like other said, it’s no 1601 IMHO. That’s years apart from the 5 digit intro that replaced them.

It is possible someone at RSC has mis-read the ref. #, or messed up the record. The 1601/3 I mean. It’s more likely the case ref matches the 7mill#

If you have 3135 I’d be shocked. 3035 was introduced in ‘77. Ten years later, the 3135 came about. If you have the KIF shock system on the balance then it’s 3135 and another source of confusion.

Yes either could be shoehorned into the 1601 case - but using a flat dial was the easy way. A 1575 was just a tad thinner. So the pie pan had some interference at the edges. Keeping the pie pan (I’ve read) would require a lot more work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by 77T

If it’s 7mill# then like other said, it’s no 1601 IMHO. That’s years apart from the 5 digit intro that replaced them.

It is possible someone at RSC has mis-read the ref. #, or messed up the record. The 1601/3 I mean. It’s more likely the case ref matches the 7mill#

If you have 3135 I’d be shocked. 3035 was introduced in ‘77. Ten years later, the 3135 came about. If you have the KIF shock system on the balance then it’s 3135 and another source of confusion.

Yes either could be shoehorned into the 1601 case - but using a flat dial was the easy way. A 1575 was just a tad thinner. So the pie pan had some interference at the edges. Keeping the pie pan (I’ve read) would require a lot more work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yea, I raised the 7million serial with both the CSR and the Supervisor, and both just gave me the "serial doesn't necessarily reflect production year" answer. Unless they somehow messed up the serial. But it's definitely a 7M serial that's on the estimates they sent me.

And sorry if I wasn't clear about this, but this watch has a 3035 movement. RSC confirmed that on the phone. I was just making the point that if my dad inherited an all-original 1601 in 2000 and needed a movement swap at that point, seems more likely they would have swapped in a 3135. But yea, it's a 3035 in there.

So yea, I got a serial number, dial, movement, bracelet, and clasp that strongly suggests 16013. Along with an admittedly hazy family history that suggests the same. But RSC is insisting it's a 1601 case. Hence my confusion. Again, hopefully a tech will look at it a bit more closely and get back to me.

[the dark knight]

Got a call back from the RSC. Was told the lead tech punched the serial # into their database and said the serial number belongs to a 15000 case, which obviously doesn't make any sense. So they are saying the serial may have been tampered with. I have no idea what to think anymore, and also don't know why they didn't just punch the serial into their database to check the reference when they first check the watch. Bottom line, RSC is not going to service the watch, and I'm done with the back and forth so they will be mailing the watch back to me. I'll take it to an independent and see what they have to say.

[Boopie]

Thanks for the update. Keep us posted!

[the dark knight]

Hi guys, I got my DJ back from RSC. I took the bracelet off to check the reference and serials and I tell you what, I still have a hard time making them out. I can definitely see a 1601, but it looks like there may or may not be a number after. The serial is really difficult as well. I posted pics below. See if any of you want to take a gander at what the serial # may be. I wonder how Rolex is able to get the serial.

Anyway, I took it to Rolliworks, and just to satisfy my curiosity I asked if they could open it so I can look at the caseback. It said 16000, which I believe would be the correct caseback to a 16013. Mike did tell me that that's certainly not a guarantee of anything as these casebacks are interchangeable. But I mean I can add the caseback to the list of things that suggest this is a 16013. I'm just really curious how Rolex came to the determination that it's a 1601, because in my opinion the reference between the lugs isn't super clear. Oh well, it's moot as they refused to service it and I've entrusted the watch to Rolliworks. Here are the between lug pictures:

[Yachtbuoy]

Ehh these are hard to photograph when there's the grime of ages but it does look like a 5 digit DJ in the end.

[Gekota]

Thanks for the updates and pictures! Though it's still not a conclusive, "mystery solved" case, I guess it turned out decently well in the end, albeit with quite a bit of redundant waiting time incurred by your local RSC. I still think that what you have is a 16013, and you are right, that 16000 caseback further reinforces that stance. Regardless, your beautiful watch is definitely in good hands, enjoy it for years to come and all the best!

[alwayshere]

I think its a 5 digit as well looking at the spacing but could be misled by the angle but thats my take when I compare with my 1601.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

I think its a 5 digit as well looking at the spacing but could be misled by the angle but thats my take when I compare with my 1601.

Agreed, I was trying to compare older photos (whatever I could find), and it's the placement of the numbers that I was focusing on. The 1 on this watch is under the "S" and "T" of "Registered Design".

The 1601s I've found seem to start further right.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Agreed, I was trying to compare older photos (whatever I could find), and it's the placement of the numbers that I was focusing on. The 1 on this watch is under the "S" and "T" of "Registered Design".

The 1601s I've found seem to start further right.

Yep and this is why I suggest you post pics of the lugs when you get the watch back because the spacing can be indicative.

I guess we almost certain its a 5 digit.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Yep and this is why I suggest you post pics of the lugs when you get the watch back because the spacing can be indicative.

I guess we almost certain its a 5 digit.

Yea, I would just have loved to hear RSC's explanation for why they thought this was a 1601. I would like to give them more credit than "all we could see was 1601 between the lugs", but that's literally all they gave me.

Oh well, like I said, all moot now.

[goyo]

Thank you. Please check your Inbox, I am trying to reach out to you.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Waterproofpt

It’s hard to see the dial clearly in your photos. Any 4 digit Datejust should have a piepan dial and 1570 non quickset movement. The 5 digit ones would not have the piepan dial and have the 3035 quickset movement. It would be helpful to post photos of the movement. Failing that, you could change the time and date and see if it has quickset or not. As for the case …. inside the caseback and between the lugs should tell you what you need to know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk