Does it exist?

[pdoukas]

I was wondering if a 1968 red sub exists. The ones I have seen have been 1969 meter's first. If a 1968 does exist, what would a nicely kept one without papers run. I'm looking to gift myself for my birthday.

Thanks,

Pete

[stevemulholland3]

2 million is the earliest I have personally seen..
I would definitely say that's in the 68' era

[pdoukas]

Hi Steve,

See, I read that the 1680 started in 1966, and I have seen people talk about 67 and 69 but never mention a 68. The guy I spoke with one time said that his 67 had a III69 on the case back. So I just don't know........so I guess the real question is, if I want a 68 red sub do I go by serial or papers?

[Michael M.]

Yes there rare, but do exist.

[RLX-lvr]

I don't know if I have seen a caseback with a '68 stamp.
Mine is I.69 caseback, serial 222xxx, MKII dial.

[Warnsboy]

Very nice Jeff

[Yazo]

Originally Posted by RLX-lvr

I don't know if I have seen a caseback with a '68 stamp.
Mine is I.69 caseback, serial 222xxx, MKII dial.

Incredible example!

[Frogman4me]

Originally Posted by warnsboy

very nice jeff

+1

[HL65]

Very nice Jeff--mine also a Mark 2 from 69' Tropical Red. I thought earliest caseback was 69' though. I have not ever seen a 68' but perhaps they do exist. I am curious now. Check out Mark Lerman's post on Red Subs--he breaks it down pretty thoroughly. Again--never saw a 68' -only 69 and do know that 2mm-2.2mm were Mark 1 dials and were stamped with 69' casebacks.

[pdoukas]

See that's where I am confused. All of you experts say 69. However, I see ads in ebay for 67 etc. Even though the caseback may say 69, should one go off of the caseback or the serial number range?

[wjk_glynn]

At the following link, Stefano Mazzariol describes a "pre-series" 1680 in the 1.2M range (1965).

http://stefanomazzariol.blogspot.com...-ref-1680.html (you'll need to scroll down)

Karl.

[wjk_glynn]

Originally Posted by pdoukas

See that's where I am confused. All of you experts say 69. However, I see ads in ebay for 67 etc. Even though the caseback may say 69, should one go off of the caseback or the serial number range?

I'm interested in hearing responses to this one as well (I was born in '67, hence the attention for me...).

Karl.

[Michael M.]

Nice watches!

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by pdoukas

See that's where I am confused. All of you experts say 69. However, I see ads in ebay for 67 etc. Even though the caseback may say 69, should one go off of the caseback or the serial number range?

Keep in mind that people selling on eBay often do not know what the actual year is of the watches they are selling. Also keep in mind that the serial number charts out there are not official charts that have been published by Rolex. Instead, they have been constructed by collectors like us who have tried to piece together the past based upon the available evidence. Because of this, the charts should be used as a general guideline and should not be taken as absolute fact. You might notice, for example, that the serial number chart by Tools in the reference section of TRF disagrees with other charts you see out on the Internet. (The charts on the Internet often date the watches older than they really are IMO.)

As for using the serial number or the date stamp, neither is concrete evidence of the actual date of manufacture. As mentioned above, the serial number charts are best guesses. As for the stamps, they are provided on the case back, which is removable. Therefore, the case back on any given watch could have been switched out at some point and cannot be implicitly trusted.

All of this said, your best bet would probably be to find a one-owner watch with a low serial number and a case back that is stamped '68 and that the owner knows not to have been replaced (assuming you can trust the owner). As I said in my PM, I haven't seen a stamp on a red sub earlier than '69 but they may exist. To be sure though, if they do exist they are quite rare and will be hard to find. Good luck!

[pdoukas]

Hi Racer X,

I did get your message, but I was extremely busy this weekend.

Yeah this is a tough one for me to wrap my head around, only because I'm a noob. According to some websites, the 1680 started it's production run in 1967. The below referenced blog: http://stefanomazzariol.blogspot.com...-ref-1680.html , suggests een earlier. However, that was possibly a prototype. I have seen images of that 1680 dial before as I am sure most of you have as well.

In any event, I have seen a "1967" red sub with serial 2.1 mil with a III69 case back. Which comes all the way back to serial numbers and case backs. With the information you have just passed along, perhaps we should be asking folks if they have a certificate from 1968. If so, has it ever been serviced and did they replace the case back? If no case back replacement what is the stamp on the back.....or is there one.

I dunno, either way, I'm getting one at the end of the year and if it has to be a 69 then so be it. But I want a MKI as original as possible ....papers not required.

Pete

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by pdoukas

Hi Racer X,

I did get your message, but I was extremely busy this weekend.

Yeah this is a tough one for me to wrap my head around, only because I'm a noob. According to some websites, the 1680 started it's production run in 1967. The below referenced blog: http://stefanomazzariol.blogspot.com...-ref-1680.html , suggests een earlier. However, that was possibly a prototype. I have seen images of that 1680 dial before as I am sure most of you have as well.

In any event, I have seen a "1967" red sub with serial 2.1 mil with a III69 case back. Which comes all the way back to serial numbers and case backs. With the information you have just passed along, perhaps we should be asking folks if they have a certificate from 1968. If so, has it ever been serviced and did they replace the case back? If no case back replacement what is the stamp on the back.....or is there one.

I dunno, either way, I'm getting one at the end of the year and if it has to be a 69 then so be it. But I want a MKI as original as possible ....papers not required.

Pete

It should come as no surprise that a 2.1 million watch with a III 69 stamp was most likely produced in 1969, not 1967. Although the 1680 may have been "introduced" in 1967 (or earlier), full production probably occurred later.

Yes, any evidence that dates the watch to 1968 would help. My guess though is that the Mk1 you will buy will be from 1969.

[Racer X]

BTW, here is the SN chart that many of us use for reference:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=54362

[pdoukas]

So I wonder if a 2.1 mil serial number, per SN Chart puts it between 67 and 68, is actually from a case that was produced during that time period but a MK1 dial never went into it until 69 as provided by reference to case back? Kinda like having a surplus of cases and nothing to put into them until time was right?

[Racer X]

2.1 is 1969 according to the chart. See the link I provided above.

[pdoukas]

OK.....how does it go 1.5 in '67, 2.4 in '68, to 2.0 in '69. See this is where I get thrown off at. Other serial number lists such as the one at http://www.preownedrolex.com/images/...eyourrolex.htm and the one at http://www.melrosejewelers.com/produ...al-numbers.htm suggest otherwise. However, I do understand your point suggesting that the serial number lists should not necessarily be used as a date determining factor alone.

[pdoukas]

And another example. On the website listed below, there is a 1968 GMT but the case back say II70. The GMT even has papers. This is why I get confused.........

http://www.qualityvintagetimepieces....tagerolex.html scroll all the way to the bottom.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by pdoukas

OK.....how does it go 1.5 in '67, 2.4 in '68, to 2.0 in '69.

Hmmm, never noticed that. That is confusing.

[enbro]

I don't know about watches, but automobiles are quite often mismatched with dates. For example, I own an engine block cast in 1969 but put into a 1970 car. It makes sense that the block date would precede the car date. And I've seen many parts with dates on them as much as 10 years ealier than the car showing the parts were being used up later on, in fact they probably designed the vehicle around surplus parts.

[springer]

The information that I have seen regarding Submariner 1680's indicate it was released in 1968 by Rolex. Also, the serial number data base was put together by collectors, not Rolex, and this data base is based on serial numbers and inner case back dates from when the watch was assembled. There are other factors in play here, besides relying on the manufacture date to determine its age. While this is a very nice guide, COSC certifications, marketing, and distribution to a dealer could take another two or three years before the watch makes it to a dealer. For instance, if I have a 1970 Submariner, based on the serial number database, it was probably 1972 or 1973 before it ever made it to a dealer's showcase. I have yet to find any vintage Rolex with a serial number that was sold the same year of its purported manufacture date.


It becomes confusing, as others noted, but the serial number data base is a guide for the date the parts were manufactured, not when they were released or sold by Rolex.

[greekbum]

Originally Posted by springer

I have yet to find any vintage Rolex with a serial number that was sold the same year of its purported manufacture date.

It becomes confusing, as others noted, but the serial number data base is a guide for the date the parts were manufactured, not when they were released or sold by Rolex.

I have to agree with you here as I have bought dozens and dozens of vintage watches from original owners with sales receipts and guess what it was always a couple to a few years latter. Recently I bought a 1962 5512 that was sold new in 1966 go figure.

[pdoukas]

So it would be safe to say that if I found what I was looking for, red sub meters first mkI dial, with serial in range of 1968 according to serial number charts then it's possible that the watch may indeed be a little bit older. I can live with that if I feel comfortable saying it was my birth year watch. My only concern is the case back where the earliest I have seen is I69.

[springer]

Originally Posted by pdoukas

So it would be safe to say that if I found what I was looking for, red sub meters first mkI dial, with serial in range of 1968 according to serial number charts then it's possible that the watch may indeed be a little bit older. I can live with that if I feel comfortable saying it was my birth year watch. My only concern is the case back where the earliest I have seen is I69.

I think it would be safe but, it might be tough finding a '68 Submariner 1680 based on the serial number data base.