Rolex Sea Dweller '666' pitted case

[T1MWV]

Hi all,

Im new to the Rolex Forum site, so hello to you all.

I am the proud owner of a 1983/84 Rolex Sea Dweller 16660. Ill try and keep this as brief as I can without waffling on. I have had a scratch on the glass for a long time and decided to have it replaced, with it being a Sea Dweller i couldn't use my local Rolex Specialist as Rolex wont provide the glass and it has to be done by them so had to bite the bullet and send it to them for the service which was fine, knowing it would come back like a new watch.

After a few weeks I was contacted advising that there was a problem with the clasp (news to me), the face was slightly tarnished and the helium release valve needed replacing. This was going to cost £1280 including the service and the glass. Which after a lot of deliberation, I decided to go ahead with. Some 2 weeks later they then came back reporting a problem with the case, saying that it had corrosion inside where the glass met the case and that it needed a new case at an additional cost of £3035!!!

At this point I had to hang up and take a few deep breaths and try to get my head round this!! Rolex pride themselves on the quality of their workmanship and materials used so I cant understand how high grade stainless steel could corrode?? They pointed out that it was due to poor maintenance as it hadn't been back to Rolex for servicing since 1994. However I have had it serviced through my local Rolex specialist where they have never picked up on any problems. When they service it (last time Feb 2011) they pressure tested the watch to Sub depth of 656 feet and it passed with flying colours.

Rolex advised me that they could service the watch but it wouldn't even be shower proof, scare tactics I'd say! I spoke to a few people that have been in the industry and they have never heard of anything like it.

However I tried claiming on my insurance which the watch was itemised on and it has since been knocked back due to Rolex's report they kindly provided them, as they just put it down to lack of maintenance!! Fuming isnt the word!

Whilst this claim was been investigated my watch came back fully serviced with a yellow label saying it was dust proof and not waterproof. They seemed to want to get it off their hands pretty quickly by the looks of things! They are quoting 6 months turn around at present and mine came back in no more than two and a half months!!

I have had it pressure tested again and it has passed the Sub Mariner 656' test again so a bit more than dust proof I'd say.

Any advice from you guys would be much appreciated.

If you got this far, thanks for taking the time for reading this.

Tim

[drtooth73]

Whats the question?
Can the steel case corrode?

[T1MWV]

Hi thanks for your message, yes I guess thats one of the underlying questions I have. I just feel like they have me over a barrel. Just curious to see what you guys would do / think.

Thanks

Tim

[T1MWV]

When i say corrosion, they referred to it as light pitting.

[Megalobyte]

Am I hearing this right, they want $6800 dollars to fix your watch?

If so, sell it for what you can and buy a mint SD here for $6000.

I'd be extremely upset if I were in your shoes.

Were they using 904 steel back then?

[T1MWV]

Yes you are hearing this right! Not sure how they justify it really! Not sure what grade they were using then Megalobyte.

Cheers

[Mickey®]

Home Owners Insurance?

I got to admit that I am amazed at how expensive the repairs are and that they keep changing what it needs but it is a 25+ year old watch. Definately a lesson for us all.

[Megalobyte]

I wonder what Bob Ridley would charge.

[Clay]

The age of the watch is almost irrelevant....Properly cared for the watch (the case especially) will out last us all.
I have seen subs and Sea Dwellers with corrosion before, it happens when moisture gets in but usually over a very long period of time...I'm surprised your watchmaker didn't pick that up???
But here's the thing.....Rolex wants to bring all watches sent in back to "like New" conditions....For example, they usually want to change out hands that don't glow even if they are fine in every other respect, along with dials, etc.
If a 666 Sea Dweller will not pressure test to 4000 feet, as far as Rolex is concerned, it's NOT water proof. At which point they will want to change what ever is necessary to get the watch to pass that 4000 ft test.
Right or wrong that seems to be the way they operate....At least here in the USA.

[subtona]

you have a potentially collectable 666 at this time....

one of the things that rolex failed to mention is that for the cost of replacing the case, they quite likely are going to alter your watch...

ie.
1)you may get a "case frame" without lugholes for that price???
2)the dial and hands if replaced will no longer have tritium plots
3)the bezel insert will no longer have a tritium pip.


if all or any of these things are going to be altered, i would certainly consider just buying a more current watch, seadweller or otherwise.

best of luck.


not a fan of RSC customer service, it leaves much to be desired.

[Mickey®]

As SubTona said all good points...I'd have them service it but keep it original.
So you don't swim with it? It's better than having a altered 666...

Breaks my heart when I see a 5513 with a brand new dial with the new hour markers etc...

[Numismatist]

Two words: Bob Ridley.

[zeuloa]

Rolex is not in the business of keeping vintage, vintage. They are in the business of servicing Rolex watches to the best of their ability, and this means replacing damaged parts or parts that don't work such as non-glowing hands.

As to your watch, I'm going to side with Rolex on this one. You have a watchmaker that seems to have not been doing a competent job as it seems he let moisture in. He also tested to the wrong pressure, which from what your stating (656 feet) is not even Submariner as this is 1000 feet.

Rolex replaces all gaskets and HEV on on all services from what I understand. Did your guy do this?

I think if anything I would be upset with the seemingly incompetent watch maker you've been using.

Great watch by the way!

[George Ab]

Sorry to hear of your experience. Clayton surmised Rolex position of bring to a new condition. I had a similar experience with Jaeger LeCoultre where they wanted to replace the case, and on and on for $2,700. They also said, all or nothing. JLC refused to work on the watch if I did not authorize everything. I sent it to Roland Murphy RGM, came back perfect for $550. Finding competent watchmakers who "get it" like Bob Ridley for the vintage market is exceptionally important.

[Hafrog]

Sorry for your experience, I know a great watch guy, but with my Rolexes I bite the bullet let RSC service the watch.

[NYC6]

Im no expert but I have never heard anything like that. Corrosion on the inside of the case! Im not buying it. The watch is not a really old piece and should be in damn good condition in the internals. I have a Bulova Accutron diver I got in '79 as a HS grad gift. Did the gaskets only twice in that time. Its been diving hundreds of time with me and no issues. A Rolex would certainly hold up better. Something smells fishy. Others with a lot more exp while chime in. Im curious to hear.

[gwalker]

Originally Posted by zeuloa

Rolex is not in the business of keeping vintage, vintage. They are in the business of servicing Rolex watches to the best of their ability, and this means replacing damaged parts or parts that don't work such as non-glowing hands.

As to your watch, I'm going to side with Rolex on this one. You have a watchmaker that seems to have not been doing a competent job as it seems he let moisture in. He also tested to the wrong pressure, which from what your stating (656 feet) is not even Submariner as this is 1000 feet.

Rolex replaces all gaskets and HEV on on all services from what I understand. Did your guy do this?

I think if anything I would be upset with the seemingly incompetent watch maker you've been using.

Great watch by the way!

I agree. I get the way people feel about the whole vintage thing but I just don't get it. I'm probably going to get flamed for that but so be it. I don't like the whole patina thing but I like all my stuff new and shiny and if its old like a classic car or antique I want it looking new and shiny too. I'm a huge car person and I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a "patina'ed" car sell for more than a car that has just underwent a rotisserie restoration and had the parts that were old and rusted replaced. Maybe its apples to oranges but IMO its pretty much the same thing. I just watched an episode of "American Restoration" and boy is Rick good at getting rid of that "patina" J/K. If moisture has been in the case and made the dial and hands look like crap I don't see the point in keeping them. Its also not like the OP's watch is some super rare 1940's Rolex either, (not that your watch isn't a very nice and desirable model.) I would have the parts replaced that need replacing and end up with what is a "new" watch. That said there is no way I would pay that much for the service. I would just sell the watch and use the money I got toward a new to me SD. Good Luck with your choice. I know its not an easy one. That price quote is just crazy.

[handsfull]

Originally Posted by Numismatist

Two words: Bob Ridley.

+1.....this has superman (AKA Bob Ridley) written ALL OVER IT.

[T1MWV]

Originally Posted by NYC6

Im no expert but I have never heard anything like that. Corrosion on the inside of the case! Im not buying it. The watch is not a really old piece and should be in damn good condition in the internals. I have a Bulova Accutron diver I got in '79 as a HS grad gift. Did the gaskets only twice in that time. Its been diving hundreds of time with me and no issues. A Rolex would certainly hold up better. Something smells fishy. Others with a lot more exp while chime in. Im curious to hear.

Hi, like you, it just doesn't sit right with me either! The reason why my watchmaker didnt pick up on this was due to the fact that Rolex wouldn't supply a new glass so they didn't remove it, the pressure test that they did gave no indication of any problems.

The whole thing just seems odd to me. In the meantime I'm sat with a gorgeous shiny serviced Dea Dweller 16660 on my wrist which doesn't feel as special as it did before I found this out! Arghhhhh

[NYC6]

If the 'pitting' is on the inside of the case that it needs to be replaced, imagine how bad the tiny mech pieces would be? They are alot more delicate and corrosion susceptible than a 904 solid ss case. The watch would not even run with that much corrosion internally! I think they're feeding you BS.

[T1MWV]

Originally Posted by NYC6

If the 'pitting' is on the inside of the case that it needs to be replaced, imagine how bad the tiny mech pieces would be? They are alot more delicate and corrosion susceptible than a 904 solid ss case. The watch would not even run with that much corrosion internally! I think they're feeding you BS.

You have a very good point thinking about it....

[HongNinja]

This is just crappy to hear all around. Not a good position to be in at all.

I'd side with having it sent back to you and have a WELL KNOWN watchmaker take a look. I always hear about Bob Ridley around these parts, and there are some smart Rolex freaks roaming these parts. That overall price/info sounds pretty off and you need a second opinion. Plus, like everyone has said, it's a "vintage/collectible" piece now. You want it restored properly.

After that, go get yourself a newer sport model you can throw in the rotation. Oldshool SD and a newer (insert Rolex here________) would be a nice combo.

[T1MWV]

Thank you all for your input, makes me feel a bit better about whats gone one. I need to try and find a specialist in the UK that might be able to have a look at how bad this supposed pitting really is. As far as Rolex go, i'm pretty disappointed the way they work and it refreshing to hear all of your views to back that up! Have I ruined it having the face and hands replaced?

Thanks again to you all

Tim

[zeuloa]

Originally Posted by T1MWV

Thank you all for your input, makes me feel a bit better about whats gone one. I need to try and find a specialist in the UK that might be able to have a look at how bad this supposed pitting really is. As far as Rolex go, i'm pretty disappointed the way they work and it refreshing to hear all of your views to back that up! Have I ruined it having the face and hands replaced?

Thanks again to you all

Tim

Not long ago there was a post where Rolex sent the OP pictures of the damage they found on his watch. From what I understand Rolex keeps a photographic record when they recommend replacement due to damage.

You might want to ask them for the pictures, afterall, that is plenty of money they are asking for!

Good luck!

[T1MWV]

Originally Posted by zeuloa

Not long ago there was a post where Rolex sent the OP pictures of the damage they found on his watch. From what I understand Rolex keeps a photographic record when they recommend replacement due to damage.

You might want to ask them for the pictures, afterall, that is plenty of money they are asking for!

Good luck!

Hi, I asked them at the time and they said that the watch was in the final stages of service and back together again. All a bit damn strange to me!! I'll try asking again!

Thanks

[harry in montreal]

Gunter, ever drive a 68 vette with the '427 big block? The 4 speed is clumsy. Clutch heavy. Feels like the froNt end is about to fall out. However, it's just as fun to drive as a car like yours with triple the hp at the wheels. Over time you will likely evolve and come to appreciate vintage pieces of art. I guess I just got a head start because it's my family business. Harry

[T1MWV]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

Gunter, ever drive a 68 vette with the '427 big block? The 4 speed is clumsy. Clutch heavy. Feels like the froNt end is about to fall out. However, it's just as fun to drive as a car like yours with triple the hp at the wheels. Over time you will likely evolve and come to appreciate vintage pieces of art. I guess I just got a head start because it's my family business. Harry

Have I missed something here??

[Mickey®]

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry in montreal
Gunter, ever drive a 68 vette with the '427 big block? The 4 speed is clumsy. Clutch heavy. Feels like the froNt end is about to fall out. However, it's just as fun to drive as a car like yours with triple the hp at the wheels. Over time you will likely evolve and come to appreciate vintage pieces of art. I guess I just got a head start because it's my family business. Harry


Have I missed something here??




I think it was for another Forum! Maybe Automotive and it was in his cliboard when he cut and pasted. LOL

[GeoGio Greece]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

Gunter, ever drive a 68 vette with the '427 big block? The 4 speed is clumsy. Clutch heavy. Feels like the froNt end is about to fall out. However, it's just as fun to drive as a car like yours with triple the hp at the wheels. Over time you will likely evolve and come to appreciate vintage pieces of art. I guess I just got a head start because it's my family business. Harry

I am of the opinion, and excuse me trying to “translate” him, that he means “ ….old pieces of whatever you get have also faults “, either from design or from use, so you have to love them as they are. He had the “training” in the family business, so he learned to accept and appreciate.

Did you ever drive a Citroen 2CV ? I still keep it, designed before WW II and in production until the ‘80’s. After that, you accept everything

[T1MWV]

Originally Posted by GeoGio Greece

I am of the opinion, and excuse me trying to “translate” him, that he means “ ….old pieces of whatever you get have also faults “, either from design or from use, so you have to love them as they are. He had the “training” in the family business, so he learned to accept and appreciate.

Did you ever drive a Citroen 2CV ? I still keep it, designed before WW II and in production until the ‘80’s. After that, you accept everything

Ah Ha!! I get it, thanks George!! :0)