Reason to question authenticity?

[BatasWife]

Hi All,
Could anyone help to identify approximate year of this sub, and whether you see anything concerning that would call into question its authenticity?
Thanks in advance!

[hutch300]

Based on these terrible photos I’d pass. If you have to question authenticity you should work with a well know reputable dealer. This is an easy watch to get a nice example of. Also, if you had a serial number you could easily date a watch to an approximate year.

[BatasWife]

Originally Posted by hutch300

Based on these terrible photos I’d pass. If you have to question authenticity you should work with a well know reputable dealer. This is an easy watch to get a nice example of. Also, if you had a serial number you could easily date a watch to an approximate year.

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately, those are the only images I have. The seller deals in coins and antique jewelry, but is admittedly not well versed in watches. He says he has service paperwork from 1989 and the original box.

[henrylee]

What’s the serial number? That will tell you the year

[77T]

It’s hard to help on the watch- but we always say this: “Buy the Seller First”

Too many snares and turns when the seller is not well-versed in watches.

If you’re interested in buying it, perhaps you could arrange a meeting at a watchmaker’s shop nearby. If the service paperwork matches the serial number, etc., the watchmaker could give you a better assessment.

But keep your budget tight since you’ll face anywhere from $1,000-$2,000 in service cost to ensure its troublefree for years to come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[HunterST]

Is it a good deal? Maybe a little too good?

[southtexas]

I believe it’s from 1999 or older (if I recall the end of tritium run correctly?). It looks like it’s in pretty good shape. What is the asking price?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Subterranean]

The seconds hand doesn't seem long enough .but I could be wrong.

[sem.gilst]

Hmm, not sure about this one. First thing I noticed was the lume dot missing. Second thing is that i’m not sure about the type of ‘swiss’ writing. Just my opinion

[KY..]

Even if it is authentic, at first glance the dial and bezel have an imitation appearance to them.

[TimeToGo]

.
Looks good to me..
I think it is worth continuing to do your due diligence.
As mentioned, get the serial checked out and matched with the service papers.

Good Luck

[ianmcg]

Looks horrible to me. Insert looks all wrong, as somebody said the second hand looks way too short, don't like the hour hand much either and notwithstanding the terrible photo the dial looks off too - lacks the depth. Good luck.


Ian

[Tricycle]

Nice find, congrats! Nothing's wrong with it, as I can see; in my opinion it's original and very beautiful 16803, so mid 80's.

It's maybe undepreciated but very significant reference in Rolex history. Read this:

https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-bl...nce-16803.html

[Kingface66]

Can anyone definitively confirm that it’s real or fake? Without a consensus one way or another, I’d pass, if I were you.

[ianmcg]

Originally Posted by Tricycle

Nice find, congrats! Nothing's wrong with it, as I can see; in my opinion it's original and very beautiful 16803, so mid 80's.

It's maybe undepreciated but very significant reference in Rolex history. Read this:

https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-bl...nce-16803.html

How do we know whether it's a 16803 or 16613 - other than the movement they look the same?

ian

[ianmcg]

Since somebody has helpfully provided the link above to a 16803 on the Bob's watches site it's easy to make a side by side comparison with the one in the original post. They are miles apart. Look at the shape of the hour markers especially at 12 and 6 for a start. By the way though it's more likely trying to be 16613 which are newer and more common but the problems are the same.

Gratuitous (luminova) 16613 photo. These blue dials are fabulous.



Ian

[Tricycle]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Can anyone definitively confirm that it’s real or fake? Without a consensus one way or another, I’d pass, if I were you.

Seems that we don't have a consensus, probably because we're comparing apples and pears. Seems that ref.16803 is not so common (produced for 4 years only, almost 40 years ago) and people are relating to what they've seen so far. I also believe it's an early edition of 16803, so made closer to 1984 and, per some remarks given in comments, I'd say that hands are right size, the bezel is correct (look closely at number "5" in 50, it's very specific for the early 16803), "Swiss - <25" writing is good and in the right place, dial looks more purple than blue to me but that's also correct for the period, even "sunburst" seems to be there even the pic of it is "horrible" as somebody said... To my best knowledge it might be a "Holly Grail Bluesy" and I would not miss it if the price is not too crazy... but then - what does "not too crazy" mean today, that is the (other) question...

If I'm wrong I'd like somebody who knows better to correct me. We're here both to help each other and to learn from each other.

[Tricycle]

Originally Posted by ianmcg

Since somebody has helpfully provided the link above to a 16803 on the Bob's watches site it's easy to make a side by side comparison with the one in the original post. They are miles apart. Look at the shape of the hour markers especially at 12 and 6 for a start. By the way though it's more likely trying to be 16613 which are newer and more common but the problems are the same.

Gratuitous (luminova) 16613 photo. These blue dials are fabulous.



Ian

There were two dials at the time for the same ref. number - black and blue, and if we're comparing this blue one to the pic of a black Sub, you're right. Markers on 6 and 12 are obviously different. But there is also one photo of a Sub (laying on gloves) with a blue dial; it seems to be the same to me, and all 3 markers (3,6,9) are of the same thickness there... Again, I might be wrong, so I' like to her another opinion. Here's the link:

https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-bl...nce-16803.html

Btw., those blue dials really are fabulous. It might be a "blasphemy" to say, but I like Bluesy better then Hulk.

[freefly]

Appears to be a franken at best (fake dial, aftermarket hands, date-disc is off, etc.).
It would be a pass for me...

[ianmcg]

Not sure why we're bothering here but does anyone actually think these two 12 markers are the same. Left is is watch at issue and right is the blue one from bobs watches site. We'll gloss over the colour for now. Bob's watches is not helping.

As for the 3 in 30....maybe it's a one a million factory misprint. Deftly worth 5 figures of anyone's money.

[Laostuh]

I'm no expert but the bezel looks off to me.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by BatasWife

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately, those are the only images I have. The seller deals in coins and antique jewelry, but is admittedly not well versed in watches. He says he has service paperwork from 1989 and the original box.

Based on what you’re describing I would pass. Just buy from a real dealer and get a real watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tricycle]

Originally Posted by ianmcg

Not sure why we're bothering here but does anyone actually think these two 12 markers are the same. Left is is watch at issue and right is the blue one from bobs watches site. We'll gloss over the colour for now. Bob's watches is not helping.

As for the 3 in 30....maybe it's a one a million factory misprint. Deftly worth 5 figures of anyone's money.

You really have good eyes...

[101031-28]

Originally Posted by freefly

Appears to be a franken at best (fake dial, aftermarket hands, date-disc is off, etc.).
It would be a pass for me...

Concur.

[J_1964]

Flat Blue Tritium Dial?