Odd reference bi metal sub

[IPCookson]

Hi Chaps, I'm a jeweller and Jewellery valuer in the UK, as well as a Rolex fan. I've had a bi-metal Submariner turn up in a valuation that has the reference for a steel 16610, it's an X serial number so approx. 1991. Everything look right for a bi-metal except for the reference, the clasp is correctly coded up though dated later than the head at March 1996. The customer purchased it used in 2009 from the US.
I know there are odd examples of Rolex doing weird things but has anyone ever heard of bi-metals coming out of the factory with a 16610 reference? My feel is that its a Frankenstein, but I don't want to tell the customer until I'm 100% and though if anyone would know for sure it would be you lot! While researching I did find two bi-metals listed as 16610s on Chrono 24 too.

[rootbeer7]

This rings a bell! If I’m not incorrect there’s a similar piece for sale currently in the US. The story goes that a watchmaker accidentally swapped identical cases by mistake. It’s the dial, hands and bezel and crown that are gold. The bracelet may have been changed later which on a watch without other questions would be fine. Could you post the case here showing the serial and model numbers (pm me if you like and I can post). If all parts are genuine then it’s worth a lot less than a complete model. It could also be a fake which we can’t discuss here but could confirm.

[IPCookson]

Hi Rootbeer, because it's a customers watch I'd rather not post the pictures without his permission but the model number is 16610 and the serial number begins X456. With the exception of the crystal which may be generic I'm in no doubt that the visible parts are authentic and it was serviced by a watch maker I know in 2015 who wouldn't have touched it if it was fake.

[Andad]

A 16610 is stainless steel.

[DoctorA]

Originally Posted by IPCookson

Hi Chaps, I'm a jeweller and Jewellery valuer in the UK, as well as a Rolex fan. I've had a bi-metal Submariner turn up in a valuation that has the reference for a steel 16610, it's an X serial number so approx. 1991. Everything look right for a bi-metal except for the reference, the clasp is correctly coded up though dated later than the head at March 1996. The customer purchased it used in 2009 from the US.
I know there are odd examples of Rolex doing weird things but has anyone ever heard of bi-metals coming out of the factory with a 16610 reference? My feel is that its a Frankenstein, but I don't want to tell the customer until I'm 100% and though if anyone would know for sure it would be you lot! While researching I did find two bi-metals listed as 16610s on Chrono 24 too.

What am I missing??
You say you’re a jeweler and Rolex fan yet you don’t know that 16610 is ONLY stainless steel and never came as two tone!
Either someone took the case of a 16610 and sourced TT bezel, bracelet, dial, and hands, or you have a fake!

[superdog]

Originally Posted by DoctorA

What am I missing??
You say you’re a jeweler and Rolex fan yet you don’t know that 16610 is ONLY stainless steel and never came as two tone!
Either someone took the case of a 16610 and sourced TT bezel, bracelet, dial, and hands, or you have a fake!

This.

[rootbeer7]

Originally Posted by IPCookson

Hi Rootbeer, because it's a customers watch I'd rather not post the pictures without his permission but the model number is 16610 and the serial number begins X456. With the exception of the crystal which may be generic I'm in no doubt that the visible parts are authentic and it was serviced by a watch maker I know in 2015 who wouldn't have touched it if it was fake.

In which case it must have had its case swapped at some point.

[exador]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

This rings a bell! If I’m not incorrect there’s a similar piece for sale currently in the US. The story goes that a watchmaker accidentally swapped identical cases by mistake. It’s the dial, hands and bezel and crown that are gold.

This one (16800).

[IPCookson]

Originally Posted by DoctorA

What am I missing??
You say you’re a jeweler and Rolex fan yet you don’t know that 16610 is ONLY stainless steel and never came as two tone!
Either someone took the case of a 16610 and sourced TT bezel, bracelet, dial, and hands, or you have a fake!

Hi Doctor A, you're not missing anything. I'm aware that the 16610 is the reference for the steel sub and I've had one on my wrist for 20 years. I'm 99.99% that it couldn't come from the factory as bi-metal but before I tell a man that he has probably been ripped off I am being diligent and checking if anyone amongst a group of enthusiasts with a huge accumulative knowledge on the subject if any of them have ever heard of a circumstance in which this could have come from the Rolex factory. I'm also curious if anyone has an answer as to why on earth this would have been done as the cost of the parts to make the conversion would exceed the price difference between the trade in price of a used steel and a similar age used bi metal.

[Woody]

I don't think it was that uncommon back in the early nineties for customers to "upgrade" their SS Subs (ref: 16610) to look like the TT version (16613). All you needed to do was source the gold bezel, crown and bracelet which at the time were much easier to come by as there was less control over parts etc. Chances are that is what your client has......a standard 16610 that has been "upgraded" with (possibly) original Rolex parts. Obviously it will have an impact on value although ironically it is likely to be worth more if it was switched back to the original SS configuration, the bracelet, bezel and bracelet being sold off separately.

[IPCookson]

Originally Posted by Woody

I don't think it was that uncommon back in the early nineties for customers to "upgrade" their SS Subs (ref: 16610) to look like the TT version (16613). All you needed to do was source the gold bezel, crown and bracelet which at the time were much easier to come by as there was less control over parts etc. Chances are that is what your client has......a standard 16610 that has been "upgraded" with (possibly) original Rolex parts. Obviously it will have an impact on value although ironically it is likely to be worth more if it was switched back to the original SS configuration, the bracelet, bezel and bracelet being sold off separately.

I have been asked about doing this two or three times in the past but the cost of a bracelet only made it uneconomical and always diverted people towards trading in the steel against a bi-metal. I suppose if someone owned a sentimental watch they could make the decision on that basis rather than financially. Otherwise it would only make sense if it could be done with secondhand parts.

[Brazicano]

If everything else is correct the most logical answer is the case middle was accidentally swapped at a high volume watch repair shop back in the day. If it were me I would send it to Rolex and see what they say. Best case scenario they charge for a new case middle and full service.

[AK797]

At least become a pledge member and make a donation if you are going to ask us for help in your professional business.

[DoctorA]

Originally Posted by IPCookson

Hi Doctor A, you're not missing anything. I'm aware that the 16610 is the reference for the steel sub and I've had one on my wrist for 20 years. I'm 99.99% that it couldn't come from the factory as bi-metal but before I tell a man that he has probably been ripped off I am being diligent and checking if anyone amongst a group of enthusiasts with a huge accumulative knowledge on the subject if any of them have ever heard of a circumstance in which this could have come from the Rolex factory. I'm also curious if anyone has an answer as to why on earth this would have been done as the cost of the parts to make the conversion would exceed the price difference between the trade in price of a used steel and a similar age used bi metal.

Again with all due respect, I’m still not getting it!! You’re supposed to be the “professional” who should know, yet you get your information and validate by asking on the forum?!
Honestly that concerns me and should concern your clients
I’m not doubting your knowledge because I don’t know you but your fact finding technique isn’t the most professional while you should be the expert!

[Tools]

I would say that it is highly unlikely that it came from Rolex this way.

I would also find it unlikely that the mid-case was changed out by accident, although that could happen through sloppy workshop management.

We can imagine a number of scenarios on how or why, but we will likely never know.

[IPCookson]

Originally Posted by DoctorA

Again with all due respect, I’m still not getting it!! You’re supposed to be the “professional” who should know, yet you get your information and validate by asking on the forum?!
Honestly that concerns me and should concern your clients
I’m not doubting your knowledge because I don’t know you but your fact finding technique isn’t the most professional while you should be the expert!

So you would rather trust someone who says "I know everything" and refuses to look outside of their own experience, rather than someone who is conscientious enough to research and ask others who may well know a little more?

[FTX I]

Tough crowd. The guy came here to get some help. If we treat him nicely maybe he decides to stay.

[Bigblu10]

Not sure if still for sale, but somebody in for sale section here had a TT Black 16613 conversion kit for sale. I would never do this, but as they say there is a market for everything.

[smym18]

Originally Posted by DoctorA

Again with all due respect, I’m still not getting it!! You’re supposed to be the “professional” who should know, yet you get your information and validate by asking on the forum?!
Honestly that concerns me and should concern your clients
I’m not doubting your knowledge because I don’t know you but your fact finding technique isn’t the most professional while you should be the expert!

How many members of this forum learned a majority of what they know by asking questions like this and researching these [usually very helpful] forums? He clearly is aware and suspicious of the watch and just looking for confirmation as he already mentioned in the first post. You can be a "professional" jeweler and not know everything about watches and their references.

[thesharkfactor]

Originally Posted by IPCookson

So you would rather trust someone who says "I know everything" and refuses to look outside of their own experience, rather than someone who is conscientious enough to research and ask others who may well know a little more?

I think you are doing the right thing. If you don't know or are not sure, you ask.

[Charlie3755]

Originally Posted by IPCookson

Hi Rootbeer, because it's a customers watch I'd rather not post the pictures without his permission but the model number is 16610 and the serial number begins X456. With the exception of the crystal which may be generic I'm in no doubt that the visible parts are authentic and it was serviced by a watch maker I know in 2015 who wouldn't have touched it if it was fake.

I would be curious to know what questions the watch maker from 2015 was asking when he was asked to service it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DoctorA]

Originally Posted by smym18

How many members of this forum learned a majority of what they know by asking questions like this and researching these [usually very helpful] forums? He clearly is aware and suspicious of the watch and just looking for confirmation as he already mentioned in the first post. You can be a "professional" jeweler and not know everything about watches and their references.

Totally agree and I learned almost 100% of my knowledge from this forum. But I’m not a jeweler who has rolex for “20 years” and watches isn’t my business

I think my patients should really get worried if I look for treatments on a forum and call it “validating”

[smym18]

Originally Posted by DoctorA

Totally agree and I learned almost 100% of my knowledge from this forum. But I’m not a jeweler who has rolex for “20 years” and watches isn’t my business

I think my patients should really get worried if I look for treatments on a forum and call it “validating”

You mean you didn't get your doctorate from reading WebMD!?

For what it's worth, having a watch for 20 years doesn't mean you're knowledgeable. I've had a car for 12 years that I know nothing about. I'm just coming to his defense because I'm in the jewelry business, and we sell pre-owned Rolex. However, I don't really allow any of our salespeople to give information regarding Rolex because they don't know nearly enough to be qualified to. I've asked countless questions on this forum myself so I can confidently relay the information if I need to. It's been a huge help.

One more thing - I've also read numerous instances where a member here says they were infinitely more knowledgeable than the salesperson they worked with at an AD. So even AD's don't always know everything.

[77T]

I think we’ve covered all the bases about this. Rolex did not make YG&SS 16610’s.

Your customer may not like it but a written appraisal of a Frankenstein Rolex is not something to which I’d affix my name.

Even for insurance purposes, it is unsuitable.

If he only wants to know “what is it worth?”, then perhaps value the parts?:
One Rolex 40 mm 16610 Midcase
One Rolex 3135 Movement
One Rolex Gold bezel & insert
One Rolex YG&SS bracelet
One Rolex Gold 8mm crown
Etc...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[DoctorA]

Originally Posted by smym18

You mean you didn't get your doctorate from reading WebMD!?

For what it's worth, having a watch for 20 years doesn't mean you're knowledgeable. I've had a car for 12 years that I know nothing about. I'm just coming to his defense because I'm in the jewelry business, and we sell pre-owned Rolex. However, I don't really allow any of our salespeople to give information regarding Rolex because they don't know nearly enough to be qualified to. I've asked countless questions on this forum myself so I can confidently relay the information if I need to. It's been a huge help.

One more thing - I've also read numerous instances where a member here says they were infinitely more knowledgeable than the salesperson they worked with at an AD. So even AD's don't always know everything.

We’re both saying the same thing btw.
The forum is a great resource of knowledge for WIS but I will stand behind my earlier statement that someone in the business should know the basics and this question is very basic

[IPCookson]

Originally Posted by DoctorA

We’re both saying the same thing btw.
The forum is a great resource of knowledge for WIS but I will stand behind my earlier statement that someone in the business should know the basics and this question is very basic

Can I reiterate that my question wasn't is a 16610 a steel model or bimetal model but whether anyone on this forum is aware of any time that a bimetal has legitimately been numbered 16610, no matter how obscure. Over the years we have all seen Rolex anomalies that break the rules, while I didn't think it likely before refusing the valuation and telling this guy that he has bought a lemon I felt it my duty to be as close to 100% sure as possible, so if for example Rolex Mexico had somehow put out 30 bimetals with 16610 cases in the mid 90s to satisfy a big order I though one of the amazingly knowledgable people on this forum would know about it. Instead I have had my professionalism and knowledge called into question.

[IPCookson]

Originally Posted by Charlie3755

I would be curious to know what questions the watch maker from 2015 was asking when he was asked to service it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair he may not even have noticed it. I know he notes down the serial number if it isn't on the job card or checks it before doing anything else but probably assumes on the model reference. If there are generic movement parts he will only complete a service if he replaces the parts to so as I said he certainly wouldn't have touched it if it was fake.

[rootbeer7]

Originally Posted by IPCookson

Can I reiterate that my question wasn't is a 16610 a steel model or bimetal model but whether anyone on this forum is aware of any time that a bimetal has legitimately been numbered 16610, no matter how obscure. Over the years we have all seen Rolex anomalies that break the rules, while I didn't think it likely before refusing the valuation and telling this guy that he has bought a lemon I felt it my duty to be as close to 100% sure as possible, so if for example Rolex Mexico had somehow put out 30 bimetals with 16610 cases in the mid 90s to satisfy a big order I though one of the amazingly knowledgable people on this forum would know about it. Instead I have had my professionalism and knowledge called into question.

Occasionally people forget their manners! Your question was reasonable and so was the way it was asked. With so many anomalies out there, why not ask. I think it has been answered now and hopefully you’ll hang around a bit longer.

[breitlings]

Never heard of it. Rolex does have some mistakes here and there and some watches which likely shouldn’t make it to market, the Sub with the SD4k bezel, and the next generation oyster quartz are two I recall.

[IPCookson]

[QUOTE=77T;8933698]I think we’ve covered all the bases about this. Rolex did not make YG&SS 16610’s.

Your customer may not like it but a written appraisal of a Frankenstein Rolex is not something to which I’d affix my name.

Even for insurance purposes, it is unsuitable.

If he only wants to know “what is it worth?”, then perhaps value the parts?:
One Rolex 40 mm 16610 Midcase
One Rolex 3135 Movement
One Rolex Gold bezel & insert
One Rolex YG&SS bracelet
One Rolex Gold 8mm crown
Etc...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[/QUOTE
Next stop is talking to the customer. In the UK it is quite normal practice to value discontinued models and watches which have been customised for replacement via the secondhand market based on market research, I don't see why this should be regarded differently to say a diamond set customised watch. Quite where to place the value is another thing!