Rolex 168000

[matthewt]

I recently purchased a Rolex 168000 sub, and with it being a 9.6mil serial number, and not an R serial, was told that this was not a true 168000 and many of them had an extra 0 stamped afterwards. When i look at the "third 0" the stamping must have been done at the same time as every aspect of the third zero is the same as the others (Including tiny tails and burrs). Are there any experts out there that could shed some light on this? Many thanks (Unfortunately i cant post a pic as i dont have enough posts, sorry.)

[bayerische]

You shouldn't listen to everything people say.

If it has three "0's" it is a 168000.

[HogwldFLTR]

You might find the below interesting...

https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-bl...00-168000.html

Since the serial numbers are approximations I guess it could be an early 168000 with the real difference between that and the predecessor being the SS used (316 vs 904). Maybe someone with specific experience with the model can chime in. Also the might be better posted over in the vintage section.

[matthewt]

Thanks for your responses, my apologies for not posting in vintage area.

[matthewt]

Lee, you are quite right. There are so many "experts" out there.......

[matthewt]

I am typing this message to get my post count up so i can post some links to the pictures :)

[matthewt]

And another one.......

[matthewt]

www.crownsandchronos.com/168000
www.crownsandchronos.com/168000.1

[exador]

Yours looks good. There was another posted recently that appeared to fall into the “added later” camp.

[matthewt]

Thanks a mill, i agree, the numbers look off center. Small trivial things..

[zionsd]

The ones I've seen with actual papers the majority of them were R serial numbers and you rarely find 168000 with 9 mill serial number with papers for some reason, but also a good indication is the last 0 I noticed with the ones that have papers were always Under the letter I in design...

[matthewt]

I heard the same thing (That the 0 was always under the I), I have included a comparison of mine and another that had an added 0.....

http://www.crownsandchronos.com/comparison1.jpg

Mine is at the bottom, the top is one that has had it added aftyerwards

[zionsd]

My humble opinion yours was added afterwards

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by zionsd

My humble opinion yours was added afterwards

After looking at 16800s and 168000s WITH Rolex papers (mostly examples on HQMilton) I'm inclined to agree that yours was a 16800 originally.

Here's a 16800. Look at ALL the numbers and compare it to yours, and how close they are.
https://www.hqmilton.com/timepieces/...er-16800-A1363

Now, here's a 168000 WITH RSC papers. The numbers all all differently placed on yours.
https://www.hqmilton.com/timepieces/...sc-papers-6741

Can't say it's definitive, but it looks like that "0" was added later

[matthewt]

Thanks for the response. Do you really think this was added afterwards? To me its just too similair.....http://www.crownsandchronos.com/168000.1

I also prepped this pic for reference. Please dont think im trying to "wish mine correct", i really just curious, the outcome of which make no difference at all...:) Thanks again

http://www.crownsandchronos.com/168000%20comp.jpg

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by matthewt

Thanks for the response. Do you really think this was added afterwards? To me its just too similair.....http://www.crownsandchronos.com/168000.1

I also prepped this pic for reference. Please dont think im trying to "wish mine correct", i really just curious, the outcome of which make no difference at all...:) Thanks again

http://www.crownsandchronos.com/168000%20comp.jpg

I agree, that "0" on the top one does certainly look like the others. That's why I was reluctant to say it was definitive.

To be sure, it's annoying as hell with this sorta thing!

The biggest problem for me would be if I were to buy a watch like this without any documentation from Rolex, I would NOT be looking forward to the relentless scrutiny and doubt that would arise when trying to sell it down the road. I sold a watch a couple years ago whose dial was discussed, scrutinized, debated, dismissed, accused, etc. by buyers so viciously that it nearly forced me to quit this hobby. It taught me one thing: Know EVERYTHING about your watch when buying it. Leave no stone unturned. Any questions or doubts you have WILL come up again later when selling.

[matthewt]

Thanks Andy. I bought as a 16800 and am happy to sell as such. I guess a 168000 would just be a little bonus.....:)
I actually derive a lot of enjoyment scrutinizing particular references that i have bought in the past, finding out EVERYTHING there is to know about them. I guess this is how we learn and become "experts"...:)

[RolexBrian]

Here's a question. Is your insert a "flat four"?

[matthewt]

Yes it is.....

[exador]

Originally Posted by matthewt

Yes it is.....

No that’s a pointed 4.

Regarding the reference number question, I don’t know what you guys are seeing.

In the top example below, it clearly appears to be a 16800 with an extra 0 added later, whereas the the bottom example looks original. All the dealer watches I’ve seen online have the digits reasonably centred.

The little tails on your zeroes also match other known good watches.

[matthewt]

The picture that you are looking at is...TOP, an added 0 we agree. The bottom pic with the red lines is my 9.6mil serial. This is what is causing confusion... Please see comparison of all three here.


These are 3 different versions, with descriptions in red..

[exador]

I just think your engraver (stamper?) was having a better day at the office

[zionsd]

Originally Posted by matthewt

Yes it is.....

Yours is a pointy 4 and you should have a flat 4 so yours was replaced

[SN13]

Matthew,

As far as i can tell from research, the difference between a 16800 and 168000 is the Steel.

Do you have a 16610? Or any more modern brushed Rolex?

Do you have the Bracelet? Can we see the markings on it?

While 316 and 904 steel are hard to distinguish separately, you can tell the color difference in sunlight.

Place a 16610 and your 16800(0) together. The 904 has a higher Nickel and Chromium content which gives the steel a whiter/bluer/cooler shine vs the 316 which will feel warmer/greyer....

This is my 16570 on a 316 SEL bracelet:



Can you see the steel color difference?

[matthewt]

Thanks, thats a great idea!

[zionsd]

Originally Posted by matthewt

Thanks, thats a great idea!

That's not a great idea cause a polish can achieve different shades and will not change the fact that your watch is an actual 16800 with an added 0 and also your bezel is suppose to be a flat 4 and its not... Sounds like you're hoping it's a true 168000 but sorry it's not...

[SN13]

Originally Posted by zionsd

That's not a great idea cause a polish can achieve different shades and will not change the fact that your watch is an actual 16800 with an added 0 and also your bezel is suppose to be a flat 4 and its not... Sounds like you're hoping it's a true 168000 but sorry it's not...

I pulled up HQ milton and many of the 16800 do align like the OP's 16800 before the added 0.

[zionsd]

Originally Posted by SN13

I pulled up HQ milton and many of the 16800 do align like the OP's 16800 before the added 0.

His align like the 16800 but doesnt align correctly for a 168000...

[SN13]

Each of the following photos was taken from the HQ milton and the Serial Numbers noted.

Once I got to R serials I added a number behind them to differentiate the photos only.

Please enjoy the show:

16800 6.3M


16800 7.1M


16800 7.2M


16800 7.3M


16800 7.4M


16800 8.2M


16800 8.3M


16800 9.0M


16800 9.4M


16800 9.8M


This is where it gets Interesting.

168000 9.3M


168000 9.6M


168000 9.6M


168000 R


168000 R1


168000 R2


168000 R3




168000 R5


R and R4 I took from different listings of SOLD watches but they seem to be the same watch in two separate listings?

nevermind I went back and appears I took two photos from the same 3799 Inventory listing. My fault. I have removed R4 as it was a duplicate.

[exador]

OK so they're all over the place. Looks like bayerische was right.

On the other hand the "Flat4" comment is a load of boswellocks.

https://www.hqmilton.com/timepieces/...q=rolex+168000