An old man ponders some sub questions

[baxta69]

It is gone midnight here in blighty and I have been laying in bed recalling my watch buying experiences without managing to get to sleep. There is one thing playing on my mind which perhaps you wise ones could settle for me,

First a potted history which I have managed to recall as best I can.

1987 - Bought my first Rolex. Originally I bought a SD from an ad in Ipswich UK called Ernest Jones. Sadly no longer there. I paid £1200 for that watch and the manager, a nice chap whose name eludes me, said if I didnt like the SD and wanted to exchange for the SS Sub he would get me one in so long as the SD remained in sellable condition. Two weeks later and I did a swap for the SS Sub. As they were the same price no further money changed hands. I must mention that there was an offer at the time that if you bought a Rolex you could claim a free Motorola 8200x mobile phone. Shaped like a brick and cost a fortune to make calls on. All the yuppies could be seen with them lined up on the bar at their local wine bar. Funny days, especially as a lowly oik like me was in amongst them
I kept the sub for just over a year and decided I would like the tt sub. So I went back to the ad who very kindly allowed me what I paid for the sub, £1200 against a bnib tt bluesy. That retailed at £2400 so I just had to come up with £1200 and the deal was done. I loved that watch but often felt gulty having so much money sitting on my wrist. I remember more people remarked on it back then than they do with the one I have now. I guess people are more used to seeing men wearing high end watches these days. I kept thinking should I have kept the ss sub.

1990 - The building industry in the UK crashed and many people such as myself were struggling to find work. I was a carpenter back then and had been used to making a lot of money. So with the demise of the building industry I fell on hard times and had to sell bluesy to finance a car. A Ford XR2....yuk! I was gutted but managed to sell it for £1650 to a dealer down in Guildford, Surrey.

After that I never had a high end watch until in 2000 I was in a position to buy from another ad in Ipswich, a Breitling SuperOcean. This I kept for two years and went back to that ad and PXd it for a tt Breitling Crosswind which I still own.

2008 - Bought a ss sub mail order from Watchfinder UK. 16610 model.

2009 - PXd the ss sub for another tt bluesy which I still own.

2010 - Also bought the YG DJ as in my profile pic.

Now herin lies my query. When I received the 16610 I was shocked. It seemed a lot different to the original ss sub I bought in 1987. Mainly the bracelet. Firstly, on the original ss sub I did not need any extra links...on the 16610 I needed two. Secondly, the first sub I owned seemed to be more rounded off on the clasp and the links were chunkier, or so I recall.
In fact when I first got the 16610 through the post I thought I had been scammed and it was a fake.
Now, I know the 1987 ss sub had the chrome/silver surrounds on the indices/dots so I am guessing it may have been the transitional model people talk about 168000. Or, could it have been the 16800?
This is really bugging me because whatever it was I would like to get one again if possible as it seemed far superior in quality to the 16610. No disrespect to owners of these as they are still a great watch full of Rolex heritage, but given the choice I would really like to get my hands on another 1987 model the same as I first owned.

Your thoughts please ladies and gentleman?

Thank you.

[springer]

Baxta, I think you nailed it pretty close as far as the model number from 1987. My best guess would be that it was a 16800. I currently own a late 1980's 16610 and a 1680 and have previously owned the 16800 and they all appear to be pretty much the same to me. The 1680 had the acrylic crystal, but the band is the same from the late 1970's through the complete 16610 line which was just discontinued. The case size is the same also, except that the stainless steel used to manufacture the 168000 was different than previous models. I can't really address anything that would be significantly different between the 16800, 168000 and the 16610. The only thing I can think of is the first Submariner you owned could have come with the 78360 band which does not contain a diver's folding clasp. Also, the link count on the Submariner bands has been the same since the late 1970's.

Maybe Larry or Greekbum can shed some light on anything that I missed.

[baxta69]

Thanks John. It definitely had the extendable clasp so I guess that rules out the 78360. Could it be that the links were slightly longer on previous models to the 16610?
I know I have gained a few pouinds since the early nighties due to relentless weight training and dare I say it, some dabbling in chemical enhancements, but I cannot see my wrist sizes increasing that much. In fact in the last year I have lost a lot of size ( I havent been in a Gym for over 7 years ago) and my wrists are still around 8".
Maybe time has just altered my perception slightly and my wrists were indeed smaller.

[springer]

Originally Posted by baxta69

Thanks John. It definitely had the extendable clasp so I guess that rules out the 78360. Could it be that the links were slightly longer on previous models to the 16610?
I know I have gained a few pouinds since the early nighties due to relentless weight training and dare I say it, some dabbling in chemical enhancements, but I cannot see my wrist sizes increasing that much. In fact in the last year I have lost a lot of size ( I havent been in a Gym for over 7 years ago) and my wrists are still around 8".
Maybe time has just altered my perception slightly and my wrists were indeed smaller.

The links for the 93150 band have been the same size since it was introduced. Maybe it was adjusted differently as there are several pin holes on the clasp to tighten the band. There is also the possibility that the two bands didn't contain the same number of links.

Take care!

[dsio]

Were there any market specific bracelets in 87? There were some American only bracelets in the early days that were made there rather than in Switzerland, I'm guessing to avoid taxes in some way, were there non standard bracelets in the UK?

[baxta69]

Yes John, I did use the pin hole adjustments on both watches, but on the 16610 it was still way too small. Not sure if there was a variation with my 1987 sub Ash, but if John is correct, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then my first sub must have come with more links. Did they cut down on the number of links with new watches in latter years? Or could the 1987 sub that I had have been a fluke issue? Mind you, the SD fitted okay too so I keep going back to my wrists having grown

[acce1999]

I enjoyed reading your story! Thanks for writing it down.

As others have said: Most likely you had a 16800 or 168000 in 1987 (or possibly one of the very first 16610). All those watches look the same with few differencies, the most important the bracelet that where upgraded in ca 2000 to a bracelet with solid links attaching the bracelet to the watch head. Also, there is now a half link closest to the clasp and this actually makes the bracelet slightly shorter.

Also, I remember my first impressions of the Oyster bracelet. When I first got it in my hands my first thought was that it was flimsy and not as massive as it looks. I was disappointed. Now, having worn Oyster bracelets for many years I like them very much. They are comfortable.

The links in the current 16610 bracelet are the same as they were when this type of bracelet was introduced in the early 1970's.

It is worth mentioning that the extension links of the flip lock clasp on the 93250 bracelet (should be 93253 on your 16613) is heavier than the earlier thin steel construction on the 93150.

If you have any pictures of your first Submariner, please scan them and post them here!

Best,

A

[ally]

I am afraid I cannot help you with your questions but really enjoyed your post. OOhh the 80's was the decade

Yuppie's with there house brick mobiles and XR2's / 3's

[springer]

Originally Posted by baxta69

Yes John, I did use the pin hole adjustments on both watches, but on the 16610 it was still way too small. Not sure if there was a variation with my 1987 sub Ash, but if John is correct, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then my first sub must have come with more links. Did they cut down on the number of links with new watches in latter years? Or could the 1987 sub that I had have been a fluke issue? Mind you, the SD fitted okay too so I keep going back to my wrists having grown

The 93150 has always had 12 links and the 78360 has 13 links.

[baxta69]

Thanks guys. Unfortunately I never got a pic of it but from what you say there may have been a slight difference in size due to the SEL so that might have been why it seemed bigger on the 87 model....or I have just unfused my bones and grown bigger wrists.....or there were more links on that particular one. Damn, the manager of Ernest Jones may have taken the initiative, hard to believe nowadays, and realising I had big wrists, put an extra link in himself.
Anyway, I am now looking for a 182000 if I can find one at the right price.