Tudor 79170 / 79160

[Felly Jr.]

OK Tudor experts, here's one for ya. Did the 79170 big block have case backs that were marked 79160? I'm a little confused, and I was seriously thinking about buying the watch in this auction until I noticed the discrepancy here. He advertises it as a 79170 but the case back clearly reads 79160...........Help!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA:IT&ih=017

[Mandrake]

Unfortunately cannot help you with that, but apart from that detail, the watch is a beauty and looks in great shape! Good luck and please let us know how it goes!!

Regards

[Felly Jr.]

I'm thinking they replaced the case back on it, but why? I'm not thinking a 79170 comes with a 79160 case back. I don't believe the 79160 came with a rotating bezel and this watch obviously has one so that's why I think they did a case back swap. This really bugs me cuz I would really like to make the guy an offer!

Calling Dan Pierce!!!!!!!! ............Help!

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Felly Jr.

I'm thinking they replaced the case back on it, but why? I'm not thinking a 79170 comes with a 79160 case back. I don't believe the 79160 came with a rotating bezel and this watch obviously has one so that's why I think they did a case back swap. This really bugs me cuz I would really like to make the guy an offer!

Calling Dan Pierce!!!!!!!! ............Help!

I saw that listing too, Felly. The caseback number has me wondering. It should read 79170 although the 79160 would fit. But for that kind of scratch it should be ALL THERE. Things like that worry me.
I'd email the seller and would be interested in his reply.
dP

[Terry Newton]

He now lists a reply considering that number issue. It sure is a nice looking watch.

Where's Steve our fake Tudor sniffer-outer?

Terry Newton

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Terry Newton

He now lists a reply considering that number issue. It sure is a nice looking watch.

Where's Steve our fake Tudor sniffer-outer?

Terry Newton

I've heard [read], but cannot confirm, that switching casebacks was not that unusual for Tudor. I'm not enough of an expert to know for sure.
That silver dial looks stunning too. I'd love to add that to my collection but lightning rarely stricks twice.
dP

[stevemulholland3]

well I cant tell you why,but all I can tell you is that I have seen that once before,so I would assume it was done at the factory,but I cannot say anything for certain.sorry I couldnt be of more help.stan might know (tudorman).
cheers,
steve

[Dan Pierce]

I went thru the pics with a fine tooth comb and I think it's a legit 79170. Still can't confirm the caseback but the rest looks ok. The dial has very slight differences from mine but I've seen many examples of that exact dial. I'd ask to see a pic of the reference and serial numbers [B504XXX].
That's a lot on $$. You want it to be right.
dP

[Felly Jr.]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

I went thru the pics with a fine tooth comb and I think it's a legit 79170. Still can't confirm the caseback but the rest looks ok. The dial has very slight differences from mine but I've seen many examples of that exact dial. I'd ask to see a pic of the reference and serial numbers [B504XXX].
That's a lot on $$. You want it to be right.
dP

So Dan, the question is, does your 79170 (a beauty I might add!!) have a matching case back? I assume it does, but I had to ask. Another thing that bugs me is the seller doesn't have the box or papers..........a little sketchy for that kind of scratch!

Also, I copied this pic to my hard drive and am concerned that the cyclops looks a little off and funky. What say you's guy's?

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Felly Jr.

So Dan, the question is, does your 79170 (a beauty I might add!!) have a matching case back? I assume it does, but I had to ask. Another thing that bugs me is the seller doesn't have the box or papers..........a little sketchy for that kind of scratch!

Also, I copied this pic to my hard drive and am concerned that the cyclops looks a little off and funky. What say you's guy's?

Felly,
My watchmaker didn't mention anything about the case back so I assume it had the correct marks. And I admit the cyclops looks a little funky. That could just be dirt. Doesn't show in the other pics.
Lack of box and papers doesn't bother me as long as authentisity can be verified.
Thanks for the kind words. Hope this works out cause I now you'll love adding one to your collection.
Good luck,
dP

[Felly Jr.]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Felly,
My watchmaker didn't mention anything about the case back so I assume it had the correct marks. And I admit the cyclops looks a little funky. That could just be dirt. Doesn't show in the other pics.
Lack of box and papers doesn't bother me as long as authentisity can be verified.
Thanks for the kind words. Hope this works out cause I now you'll love adding one to your collection.
Good luck,
dP

I was concerned that the cyclops is not positioned on the crystal in the right spot. From the angle of the pic it looks as if the cyclops is too low like it dropped or something. Could it just be the angle? It looks like a pretty straight on shot so shouldn't it look perfectly framed in the date window?

[stevemulholland3]

I see what you mean,not sure what to make of it.I have been taking some pictures trying to replicate that effect with no success.can you request a few more face shots?

[Felly Jr.]

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

I see what you mean,not sure what to make of it.I have been taking some pictures trying to replicate that effect with no success.can you request a few more face shots?

Yeah, I'm going to bring this concern up to the seller and see if he'll post some more pic's. He's been very nice so far with my previous question so that's a good indication.

[bagel]

I have seen numerous examples of 791x0 chrono with case back stamped with 79160. Personally, I guess it is ok because rolex / tudor often share parts amongst the same series.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Felly Jr.

I was concerned that the cyclops is not positioned on the crystal in the right spot. From the angle of the pic it looks as if the cyclops is too low like it dropped or something. Could it just be the angle? It looks like a pretty straight on shot so shouldn't it look perfectly framed in the date window?

Really difficult to tell and changing the camera angle even slightly makes a huge difference when taking pics. The magnification looks very strong just like mine.
Again, for this price you want it all but if the crystal is the only issue it's easily recitified.
Felly, do you have a trusted local watchmaker that could review the auction?
dP

[Felly Jr.]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Really difficult to tell and changing the camera angle even slightly makes a huge difference when taking pics. The magnification looks very strong just like mine.
Again, for this price you want it all but if the crystal is the only issue it's easily recitified.
Felly, do you have a trusted local watchmaker that could review the auction?
dP

There is a Rolex certified / trained watchmaker that works in the Bend Over Bridge near me but I'm not sure he would be willing to go online to look at it. I could ask, but I'm guessing he won't vouch one way or the other for it unless he has it in his hands.

Bottom line is if I DID buy this watch I would want to get it at the lowest possible price since it doesn't come with B & P's and hope that if it does need some TLC that RSC will work on it.

[veefour]

Originally Posted by Felly Jr.

I was concerned that the cyclops is not positioned on the crystal in the right spot. From the angle of the pic it looks as if the cyclops is too low like it dropped or something. Could it just be the angle? It looks like a pretty straight on shot so shouldn't it look perfectly framed in the date window?

I think it's camera angle. You can see lower part of the case a little out of focus, while upper part is OK.

[Lol-x]

There is one on the bay now with a 79160 caseback on a 79180 watch.

I think that the caseback situation must be something like what Rolex did with the 5512 and 5513 where the casebacks were frequently found on the other model watch.

The same also happened with the Date-Just 1601 and 1600 and 1603. They are all the same case back except for the stampings.

I don't think you would see Rolex do that these days, but it is something that has been known to occur in the 70's to early 90's.

[Dean F]

There's another 79170 w/79160 caseback over in Itally as well, must have been a common practice, figures, 160/170/180 are all essentially the same other than the bezels.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT