Confused about my 16610LV card

[thekman]

I bought a Kermit back in 2014 without box and papers from a Rolex AD. I decided to send it a couple of months ago finally to get serviced and also to authenticate it as true 16610LV. The RSC card I received just says 16610 T. The watch came back with the maxi dial and green bezel which as I understand they would have changed those back to the original configuration if this was not a true LV. Did RSC mess up my card?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JamieBLNR]

Buying an LV without box and papers is an incredibly brave move, no matter where you bought it from.

I'd contact rolex and see what they say. One assumes they can validate the watch from the serial.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Well any 16610LV is only a normal 16610 with a green insert nothing more, all the T donates its a non lug hole case.

[JamieBLNR]

But I assume the chasm in value is down to whether or not it left rolex with a green bezel or not.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[Tools]

Contrary to Internet lore, Rolex does not change-back watches that come to them with authentic, but not original, parts. They will, of course, but you would be required to pay for those parts.

They do not "authenticate" watches either, even if you want to slip in a sly move to do so.

LV's are valuable with original paper that says so. You cannot get the papers replaced.

All LV's are 16610 models, and they are also T (non-pierced) cases.

[JamieBLNR]

Hang on. Rolex can't validate an LV Rolex. So any 16610... Ditch the papers. Source a green bezel...and you're away?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by JamieBLNR

Hang on. Rolex can't validate an LV Rolex. So any 16610... Ditch the papers. Source a green bezel...and you're away?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

You would need a maxi dial as well.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well any 16610LV is only a normal 16610 with a green insert nothing more, all the T donates its a non lug hole case.

This is inaccurate. Compared to the standard 16610LN, the 16610LV also had larger indices ('maxi dial') and a wider minute hand.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=194256

[1665fan]

Originally Posted by JamieBLNR

Hang on. Rolex can't validate an LV Rolex. So any 16610... Ditch the papers. Source a green bezel...and you're away?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

That’s why people don’t buy them without papers and or hang tag with Lv on it

[JamieBLNR]

Maxi seemingly is the uneasily changed differentiator. What a minefield for the uninitiated

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by MTBer

This is inaccurate. Compared to the standard 16610LN, the 16610LV also had larger indices ('maxi dial') and a wider minute hand.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=194256

Yes it has a maxi dial but its still just a 16610.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by padi56

Yes it has a maxi dial but its still just a 16610.

Sorry for the confusion, but you said the difference between a 16610LV and a 16610LN is the green bezel insert, "nothing more". The fact that the dial and minute hand are indeed different means that your "nothing more" statement was incorrect. These differences are important, because they're what distinguish a standard 16610LN from a 16610LV.

I can tell you like to be right, but misinformation doesn't help people trying to learn, and it can be especially confusing when that misinformation is coming from those regarded to be very knowledgeable.

[JamieBLNR]

I think it would be MASSIVELY helpful to know how, asides from the bezel how how an LV and an LN differ. As I write this, I sense an already well documented thread pulsating.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[1665fan]

Originally Posted by JamieBLNR

I think it would be MASSIVELY helpful to know how, asides from the bezel how how an LV and an LN differ. As I write this, I sense an already well documented thread pulsating.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Insert, hands, and dial are all different with LV..........

[Tools]

Originally Posted by JamieBLNR

I think it would be MASSIVELY helpful to know how, asides from the bezel how how an LV and an LN differ. As I write this, I sense an already well documented thread pulsating.

LN or LV mean, Lunette Noir, or Lunette Verti, so that basic nomenclature is either black or green insert.

The 16610LV, or just V, also came with the now standard maxi-dial and hands.

There is absolutely no way to distinguish one from the other without those cosmetic parts, so almost nobody in their right mind should pay a premium if they buy one unless it has original paperwork that would demonstrate so.

The question becomes if a typical RSC would even have access to the original Genève build-code to know how it was dressed out-the-door.

It's a minefield if you cannot establish and authenticate provenance.

[Al1969]

OP, any pics of the LV?

[Loevhagen]

Originally Posted by MTBer

Sorry for the confusion, but you said the difference between a 16610LV and a 16610LN is the green bezel insert, "nothing more". The fact that the dial and minute hand are indeed different means that your "nothing more" statement was incorrect. These differences are important, because they're what distinguish a standard 16610LN from a 16610LV.

I can tell you like to be right, but misinformation doesn't help people trying to learn, and it can be especially confusing when that misinformation is coming from those regarded to be very knowledgeable.

Agree. And the inherent dial printing configurations identifies the variations as well.

I'm not saying that this means the world, but I say that on an a forum like this it's important that information conveyed herein is de facto correct. padi56's statement is not factually correct - but I get what he mean emotionally. But for some, emotions are not enough. Facts is important regardless.



Having said that, I'm still surprised that many members think that "a 16610LV is just a 16610LN with green insert". It's like saying "a 14060 is just a 16610 sans date"...

[thekman]

Thank you everyone for the input. I will add pics when I can. Just to clarify when I bought this in 2013 or 2014 (don’t really remember) I paid less than 5k for it. The premium over a black sub was almost non existent so having documentation of it being an LV was of no concern to me at the time at all.
I was offered a discount on the ceramic black sub and Hulk at the time but since this was preowned and cheaper I went with it. Very different times and that’s why papers really didn’t matter to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JamieBLNR]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

Agree. And the inherent dial printing configurations identifies the variations as well.

I'm not saying that this means the world, but I say that on an a forum like this it's important that information conveyed herein is de facto correct. padi56's statement is not factually correct - but I get what he mean emotionally. But for some, emotions are not enough. Facts is important regardless.



Having said that, I'm still surprised that many members think that "a 16610LV is just a 16610LN with green insert". It's like saying "a 14060 is just a 16610 sans date"...

Comments noted, and helpful. I wouldn't be surprised though, people still ask how long the wait on a SS Sub is...

It's all interesting. I consider myself a watch enthusiast, but I didn't know the intricacies of a LN vs a LV apart from the obvious. I've found this thread of use. Thank you.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[jcarm981]

https://www.watchclub.com/curated-by...ry-sub-decoded

Not that this answers your question but there’s a lot of good info in the above link.

C1: The first production LV’s featured the new ‘T’ case with solid lugs and the model number 16610T engraved between the lugs, with “T” standing for “Trou Borgne”, or “blind hole”. It is important to note that the model number engraved on the case does NOT have the suffix LV. The serial number is engraved between the lugs at six o’clock in the traditional Rolex style

[thekman]

For those asking this is the watch.

To make it clear my question is:

Did Rolex mistakingly put 16610 on the card instead of 16610LV or is this just common practice like how all sub cases are stamped 16610T ?

Would you just call RSC and ask?

Additionally they did polish my bracelet (not the case) which I asked the m not to do but to make up for it they sent me a cap and travel pouch. Not complaining just stating that mistakes happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by thekman

To make it clear my question is:

Did Rolex mistakingly put 16610 on the card instead of 16610LV or is this just common practice like how all sub cases are stamped 16610T ?

I found this post from an older thread that suggests some degree of inconsistency on Rolex's part with respect to model designation on the card:

Originally Posted by subtona

I recall it being typical for LV to only read 16610 on some.
Ie I believe that detail is inconclusive.

Also a regular sub would not have the maxi dial nor maxi hand.

https://www.rolexforums.com/newreply...eply&p=6919559

Agree with others- verifying a true LV is a minefield because of the spotty documentation and no empirical way for anyone outside of Rolex to authenticate one- all the more reason why it's so important to know ALL of the differences between the LN and the LV, not just the obvious one.

A clone made using a donor 16610LN with a LV bezel, dial, and hands could fool anyone. The clones that are at least possible to spot are the ones that still have the standard dial and hands...why anyone would dismiss the existence of these differences is beyond my comprehension.

[1665fan]

Some are marked on the papers and hangtags and others are not....the serious collector will be looking for a set that has the Lv markings.....all the rest u be the judge, like Tiffany dials......

[mmalek1]

I happen to wearing my 16610Lv today. My original papers did state only the serial number, no T on it, it a early Z without renault. I did have it serviced by Dallas RSC in 2013 and I’m not sure if it said anything about LV either. Maybe one of the hang tags did, but I don’t have that as I never asked for it when I got it. I really didn’t know or care at the time as it was my first piece and I just wanted to wear the watch.

OK—Correction, the service card did state LV in it, but not the original papers.

[mwatt65]

I just looked at the receipt for my service last year, mine says 16610LV.

[Bladeshot]

I’d be wanting to see LV or V on the card. I’ve encountered it both ways. Without one of those designations, i would certainly want to keep the Rolex Service paperwork, receipt, etc. but that does not prove it’s an LV without LV on documents.

When I sent one of mine off for service, I had No Papers, RSC Dallas sent it back with a card that said LV. I bought it from Jacek but it had no original papers or card with it (I trusted him). For me to sell it to someone else with confidence down the line, I needed the service and wanted the card with LV on it. I don’t know why your card would not have LV on it.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by thekman

For those asking this is the watch.

To make it clear my question is:

Did Rolex mistakingly put 16610 on the card instead of 16610LV or is this just common practice like how all sub cases are stamped 16610T ?

Would you just call RSC and ask?

Additionally they did polish my bracelet (not the case) which I asked the m not to do but to make up for it they sent me a cap and travel pouch. Not complaining just stating that mistakes happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A plain and simple fact if your watch was not a genuine 16610LV Rolex would not have serviced it,and most certainly informed you of the fact,you are worrying over nothing.

[Andad]

Could it just be that your 16610LV was returned to you as a 16610LV because it was originally manufactured as an LV with the wider minute hand/lume, the maxi dial and the green bezel insert?

Could Rolex have identified your watch as an LV by both the serial number and the movement number and would not have been returned as an LV it it was originally an LN.

A Forum Rolex tech could confirm this for us and end the speculation and misinformation?

The watch is certainly an LV to me and Rolex has confirmed this.

[rootbeer7]

This is the Rolex Service paperwork and card from my own watch. I took it to RSC St James. Hopefully this will help all further queries about the LV.

[Daveclock]

Originally Posted by padi56

A plain and simple fact if your watch was not a genuine 16610LV Rolex would not have serviced it,and most certainly informed you of the fact,you are worrying over nothing.

With respect Padi - you would be worrying over the watch value being 1/3rd less than you possibly paid for it, and much worse if further franken.