168000 vs 16800

[Doug Rochon]

I am looking to get a Transitional model.I am a bit fuzzy on if it is 16800 or the 168000. It seems the 168000 has the change in steel and was only made for 9 months. I am not completely sure when the face and crystal changed.
Any info would be great.

[mike]

Originally Posted by Doug Rochon

I am looking to get a Transitional model.I am a bit fuzzy on if it is 16800 or the 168000. It seems the 168000 has the change in steel and was only made for 9 months. I am not completely sure when the face and crystal changed.
Any info would be great.

Hey Doug,

This would probably get more play in the Rolex forum, but I'll try to answer as best I can.
The reference 16800 is known as the "transitional" Submariner for several reasons.
The 16800 replaced the reference 1680 and had several changes/"improvements".
It was the first Diver to introduce the 3xxx fast beat movement as well as the first to introduce a quick-set date feature. It was also the first diver fitted with a saphire crystal and a uni-directional ratching bezel. Prior divers used a friction fit bi-directional bezel.
Early models of the 16800 (circa 1979-84 or so) were equipped with a matt dial with non-white gold markers. Later versions were (as was the rest of the sports family) fitted with gloss dials with WG surrounds. Most collectors favor the former matt version and feel this is the true transitional model.
Of course all luminosity was provided with tritium.

Here's a pic of mine,



The reference 168000 is the same watch save for the type of Stainless Steel used. Indeed the 168000 was produced for a short period of time and represents Rolex shift to the use of 904 Stainless instead of the previous 316 used in the past.
Conventional wisdom says the 168000 was equipped with a gloss dial with WG surrounds although some examples shown on various fora show a matt dial.
Noteworthy: many gloss versions of both the 16800 and 168000 show a "spider webb effect on the dial. This seems to have been a defect in the paint mixture used at the time. Some view this as a desirable feature (though I confess I'm not one of them), others see it as a flaw.
Pricing seems to reflect the vlaue placed on matt dials by collectors as opposed to the latter gloss versions.
Certainly the 168000 is the rarer version, but pricing again favors the eariler variation.

Hope this helps a little.

[padi56]

Excellent post Mike and topic moved to the correct forum.

[frostie]

Originally Posted by mike

Hey Doug,

This would probably get more play in the Rolex forum, but I'll try to answer as best I can.
The reference 16800 is known as the "transitional" Submariner for several reasons.
The 16800 replaced the reference 1680 and had several changes/"improvements".
It was the first Diver to introduce the 3xxx fast beat movement as well as the first to introduce a quick-set date feature. It was also the first diver fitted with a saphire crystal and a uni-directional ratching bezel. Prior divers used a friction fit bi-directional bezel.
Early models of the 16800 (circa 1979-84 or so) were equipped with a matt dial with non-white gold markers. Later versions were (as was the rest of the sports family) fitted with gloss dials with WG surrounds. Most collectors favor the former matt version and feel this is the true transitional model.
Of course all luminosity was provided with tritium.

Here's a pic of mine,



The reference 168000 is the same watch save for the type of Stainless Steel used. Indeed the 168000 was produced for a short period of time and represents Rolex shift to the use of 904 Stainless instead of the previous 316 used in the past.
Conventional wisdom says the 168000 was equipped with a gloss dial with WG surrounds although some examples shown on various fora show a matt dial.
Noteworthy: many gloss versions of both the 16800 and 168000 show a "spider webb effect on the dial. This seems to have been a defect in the paint mixture used at the time. Some view this as a desirable feature (though I confess I'm not one of them), others see it as a flaw.
Pricing seems to reflect the vlaue placed on matt dials by collectors as opposed to the latter gloss versions.
Certainly the 168000 is the rarer version, but pricing again favors the eariler variation.

Hope this helps a little.

It is simply an amazing watch. I love this vintage rolex

[Jocke]

A friend of mine ask tha HQ.

And here is what Rolex, Geneva says about it:

Got the news from Rolex Switzerland today.

The reason for the extra zero in the model number was to indicate the new type of metal treatment. The "normal" 16800 was type 1916, the 16610 is 904L. So, basically these 168000 cases were meant for 16610, but since the 16610 had not yet been introduced, Rolex chose to put the extra zero to recognize these "transitional" cases. Oh no...ANOTHER transtional Rolex!

Best thing is...they only produced these 168000-stamped cases for approx half a year. From middle of 1988-primo 1989. This must mean the 168000 indeed is a rare bird and probably the modern Sports Rolex with the shortest life. No longer the 16550 cream Explorer.

As for the matte dial, Rolex explains the coating on the 16800 dials were pretty fragile like the cream dial. Normal light would create the matte look, just like the cream dial originally was white.

Jocke

[problmchylde]

Here's both.......

16800.....



168000.......



As you can see, the 168000 doesn't look any different than a modern 16610, maybe just the T<25 [correct for a 168000], and under a loupe, there are many fine hairline cracks [spider webs] on the dial, also common to the early batches of gloss dials,plus the hands and hour markers are turning a nice cream colour ....

[Doug Rochon]

Thanks Alot ! I have gone ahead and put a dp on a 16600 and a 168000. I choose the 168000 simply because of its short production time.
I have kinda gotten addicted to these damn things! I has 1 for 40+ years not even thinking about it now in the last month I bought 2 and and 2 on hold!

[problmchylde]

Excellent choices DOUG......

[frostie]

Excellent choices excellent watches and excellent pics

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Wow, I'd love to own that 168000

[mike]

Congrats!

[Juggernaut]

I would love to see a side-by-side photo (16800 and a 168000 in the same photo so that lighting is equivalent) to contrast the difference in the 316L and 904L...

[padi56]

This thread is 12 years old