Ebay 1680 2.38 mark IV......original dial?

[Gina Marie]

http://m.ebay.com/itm/331993640113

Great watch. Looks unpolished. I have a 2.38 mark 4 as well. I have always been told that a mark 4 in a 2.38 case is likely a replaced dial. I have now seen a few since I bought mine. I have also seen a 2.40 ff brown dial in the possession of a well known dealer......so is it possible that a 2.38 can have an organic mark 4 dial. We have seen the gmt dial guidelines largely debunked over time......is it time to do the same with the well known drsd article about red sub number guidelines? My baby is attached!

[Michael M.]

I have seen MK4 dials as early as 2.35mil. However, the earliest example of a MK4 I've owned that I'm confident was all original was 2.38mil. The 2.35mil example I owned had been serviced at Rolex NYC once during the early 1970's, whereas the 2.38mil appeared to have never been opened.

[Gina Marie]

Micheal, you are the man with the knowledge. The well known drsd article reads that 2.45 is the cut off.....when I showed the author of the article a 2.40 ff brown sub he said the he had never seen one before. However he still stuck to his guns at 2.45.

[Michael M.]

Originally Posted by Gina Marie

Micheal, you are the man with the knowledge. The well known drsd article reads that 2.45 is the cut off.....when I showed the author of the article a 2.40 ff brown sub he said the he had never seen one before. However he still stuck to his guns at 2.45.

The issue with Vintage Rolex, at least from my experience, is that Rolex more often than not they used whatever parts they had available. Examples would be mismatched 5512/3 casebacks, 1665's from the late 1970's with MK1 Dials, late production 1019's with earlier casebacks, overlapping of MK2/3 Daytona pushers, etc.

Another example - I just purchased a seldom worn full set 16800 Matte with 9.4mil serial. Clearly evident that the movement had never been out of case and caseback not opened until recently, but all of the charts say that 9.4mil is out of range for a matte dial?

I wouldn't sweat it at 2.38mil, I'd be willing to bet that there is a strong likelyhood your 1680 left the factory with a MK4 dial.

[themaninblack]

Dials, case numbers, and case back numbers do not always line up exactly as per known charts and the various resources. Most reliable charts would put your watch case st 1969 but the caseback is marked 70, highly unlikely to be an issue though, it's not an exact science. My red 1680 Mk IV is all original and carries a 2.6 case and I think a I.70 case back stamp from memory.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Michael M.

The issue with Vintage Rolex, at least from my experience, is that Rolex more often than not they used whatever parts they had available. Examples would be mismatched 5512/3 casebacks, 1665's from the late 1970's with MK1 Dials, late production 1019's with earlier casebacks, overlapping of MK2/3 Daytona pushers, etc.

Another example - I just purchased a seldom worn full set 16800 Matte with 9.4mil serial. Clearly evident that the movement had never been out of case and caseback not opened until recently, but all of the charts say that 9.4mil is out of range for a matte dial?

I wouldn't sweat it at 2.38mil, I'd be willing to bet that there is a strong likelyhood your 1680 left the factory with a MK4 dial.

9.4 million is way out of range for a matte dial on a 16800...not even close. Why buy a watch with a story?

[descartes]

I have a 2.36M mark IV red sub which I believe to be original. I started writing an article many months ago which aggregated all the examples of mark IVs in that range but I haven't had time to finish it up. There are a good number of examples out there. The DRSD article is great but it's misleading to think of 2.45 as a strict cut off. Indeed, the article itself makes a point of saying so.