1680 red sub help 2.29 serial

[dhknola]

Going to look at this later this week, I only have this photo. 2.29 serial. One owner, who at the time of purchase did not like the oyster and went with jubilee bracelet.
I like what I see, but don't want lose something in my excitement.

[TimeToGo]

Don't know if you are familiar with this write up:

https://www.watchprosite.com/?page=w...211&pi=4075146

...which would suggest that the serial should have a Meters First dial.
Though anything is possible that it came with a Mk4, as pictured.

Hard to tell if some scratches may be on the dial, versus the crystal (such above the Rolex Perpetual "DATE"; the Crown, ROLEX writing, and the last R in the red Submariner).

I would recommend a better picture of the dial.

The price would depend on the condition of the dial.

[dhknola]

I have been scouring that site, thank you.
My lone concern is the serial # range, but I feel like at 2.29, a mark iv very well could have been applied as the original dial.
I will have a better idea once I go see it, but I just wanted to make sure I did not miss something.
I have been told it was a one owner watch, no papers, but box and outer box, and it's on a jubilee as apparently the owner at time of purchase preferred jubilee over oyster.
I will certainly have the loupe out for a dial inspection :)

[TimeToGo]

.
Good Luck!

Keep us posted

[swaini3]

Nice lume color. FWIW, I have a 2.25 mill and it has a meters first dial. More pictures pls ;)

[dhknola]

I love the lume color!
Will get more pictures when I see it :)
I am still miffed on that mark for such an early serial, but it's not crazy early if the common acceptance is that mark iv's began at 2.4 mil.

[RedSub]

Checking in from your other post on VRF to reiterate that I own a 2.3M serial 1680 with a feet first, open 660, red Submariner Mark IV dial.

2.29 would be early according to some of the online guides, but I’m confident that my 2.3 is original and, thus, likely to believe that this 2.29 is also legit, assuming everything else would check out.

Much to uncover in the vintage world, truly fascinating.

[dhknola]

Thanks Red Sub! I also feel it’s not out of the realm of possibility for the serial to be correct.
I can’t wait to go see it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[subx]

2.29 with a Mark IV dial is a gamble no matter how you slice it, as it is More likely to be a dial swap during warranty service, UNLESS it is documented, guarantee papers, pics, etc
other than that the watch looks good, all looks good on it from that one pic.

[dhknola]

A old dial swap does concern me. Someone did mention they have a one owner mark iv in the 2.3 range, so I feel like it could have been born that way and also could have been swapped.
Oy. And it’s not cheap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PVR]

I can tell you from a resale perspective that watches with these types of questions are difficult to sell or resell. Once you leave the "known and accepted" serial ranges, you get into a grey area. Of course every seller will tell you the same story, "its a one owner watch" "This is how I bought it" etc.. but as you can see it is not considered clearly correct so if you are buying it keep in mind that if one day you want to sell it, you will be faced with the same questions and will need to find another buyer like you..

[btinl]

Unless it’s a stellar price, I’d rather not have a watch with a questionable dial swap. My 2.24 serial red sub has a mark II MF dial.

[dhknola]

I went and checked it out. It's lovely, but serial to current dial gave me cold feet. I think (sadly) that it is a somewhat ancient dial swap. Oh well.

[1665fan]

Originally Posted by dhknola

I went and checked it out. It's lovely, but serial to current dial gave me cold feet. I think (sadly) that it is a somewhat ancient dial swap. Oh well.

Smart move……if it was super cheap it would be one thing but nobody is paying market value for a mismatch dial/serial