Case back date stamp vs Serial Numbers?

[Fletcher's Dad]

Afternoon everyone, hoping I can tap into your collective knowledge once more as I have two questions relating to the date stamps on vintage Rolex case backs vs the corresponding serial numbers. And my apologies in advance if this has been covered previously.

1) Which of the two timing references should be take as being more accurate to when the watch was actually produced for a 1675 GMT. Ie. case back indicates I 70 (first quarter of 1970) while the serial number indicates as 2,78X,XXX (latter half of 1971). I assume the serial number trumps all, with the case backs being less reliable but I wanted to confirm.

2) Why is it that this timing delta between case back and serial number is so broad with GMT and Subs (and possibly other sports models?) at typically a 1-2 year spread in many instances, whereas with other non-sports models such as DJ's there in many cases is very little to no delta with both timing stamps often aligning.

Thanks in advance!

[springer]

Try the captioned thread below. It is from last week and should answer all your questions and concerns.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=875055

[Dan S]

The case-back has an actual date, although it's not always known exactly how that date relates to the delivery date. The serial number is just a serial number, not connected to a date except through speculative tables and charts. Unfortunately, Rolex doesn't provide this information, so the idea that 2.78M corresponds to the second half of 1971 is just an educated guess. Presumably you are reading this from a table on the internet. There are many tables, some are copied from other tables, so you might see the same numbers on several tables. That doesn't mean they are official or even correct.

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by Dan S

The case-back has an actual date, although it's not always known exactly how that date relates to the delivery date. The serial number is just a serial number, not connected to a date except through speculative tables and charts. Unfortunately, Rolex doesn't provide this information, so the idea that 2.78M corresponds to the second half of 1971 is just an educated guess. Presumably you are reading this from a table on the internet. There are many tables, some are copied from other tables, so you might see the same numbers on several tables. That doesn't mean they are official or even correct.

mmm...well Rolex has their own Confidentiale lists...that are serial related from 54 on.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by R.W.T.

mmm...well Rolex has their own Confidentiale lists...that are serial related from 54 on.

I don't know what "Confidentiale" means and google isn't helping, but if you are saying there is an official chart of serial numbers, I'm sure we would all love to see a photo.

[Fredrik]

Originally Posted by Dan S

I don't know what "Confidentiale" means and google isn't helping, but if you are saying there is an official chart of serial numbers, I'm sure we would all love to see a photo.

There is no official chart, but Rolex have lists. As far as I remember someone over at VRF had access to one a long time ago. But since they are internal and hence confidential no one with access to lists will ever post them.

[77T]

One thing about the casebacks.

It isn’t always original to a vintage watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Fletcher's Dad

. . .
1) Which of the two timing references should be take as being more accurate to when the watch was actually produced for a 1675 GMT. Ie. case back indicates I 70 (first quarter of 1970) while the serial number indicates as 2,78X,XXX (latter half of 1971). I assume the serial number trumps all, with the case backs being less reliable but I wanted to confirm.

. . .

No, you have it backwards.

Caseback stamps are the Rosetta Stone for dating Rolex watches. Enthusiasts have used case back stamps to "bracket" when serial numbers were likely used, so if the case back is original, it trumps all.

After ~1972, when they stopped stamping cases, it becomes more of a guess so purchase receipts and visual sightings became the source of "dating". We used to await the first sighting of new letter prefixes so we could add that "date point" to our charts.

[Haywood_Milton]

This is as much as I will share, but it gives you a flavour :



While this document is a useful guide better than most, I have found enough inarguable, individual instances of dated watches to prove that even this is not always accurate.

I maintain my own database, 364 pages long and 140,400 words at the last count, comprising a list of every Rolex that has crossed my path, many with dates of sale, case-back date codes or similar. That is my ultimate resource.

I don't agree that case-back date codes provide anything other than a loose correlation with that of completed manufacture.

The greatest breakthrough I took from the "confidenziale" document was the realisation that, from decades ago, in any given year Rolex would often attribute case numbers from several non-contiguous series. I had noticed the phenomenon more recently, when (for example), most of the internet charts will tell you that K-series Rolex watches are from around 2001……but all the numbers from K550xxx to about K600xxx were reserved for the gem-setting department, which then appears to have released them over the following five years or so as they finished setting various blingy wonders.

Insta : haywood_milton_rolex

[baumare]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

This is as much as I will share, but it gives you a flavour :



While this document is a useful guide better than most, I have found enough inarguable, individual instances of dated watches to prove that even this is not always accurate.

I maintain my own database, 364 pages long and 140,400 words at the last count, comprising a list of every Rolex that has crossed my path, many with dates of sale, case-back date codes or similar. That is my ultimate resource.

I don't agree that case-back date codes provide anything other than a loose correlation with that of completed manufacture.

The greatest breakthrough I took from the "confidenziale" document was the realisation that, from decades ago, in any given year Rolex would often attribute case numbers from several non-contiguous series. I had noticed the phenomenon more recently, when (for example), most of the internet charts will tell you that K-series Rolex watches are from around 2001……but all the numbers from K550xxx to about K600xxx were reserved for the gem-setting department, which then appears to have released them over the following five years or so as they finished setting various blingy wonders.

Insta : haywood_milton_rolex

Finally! This is very interesting, thank you for sharing!

[R.W.T.]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

This is as much as I will share, but it gives you a flavour :



While this document is a useful guide better than most, I have found enough inarguable, individual instances of dated watches to prove that even this is not always accurate.

I maintain my own database, 364 pages long and 140,400 words at the last count, comprising a list of every Rolex that has crossed my path, many with dates of sale, case-back date codes or similar. That is my ultimate resource.

I don't agree that case-back date codes provide anything other than a loose correlation with that of completed manufacture.

The greatest breakthrough I took from the "confidenziale" document was the realisation that, from decades ago, in any given year Rolex would often attribute case numbers from several non-contiguous series. I had noticed the phenomenon more recently, when (for example), most of the internet charts will tell you that K-series Rolex watches are from around 2001……but all the numbers from K550xxx to about K600xxx were reserved for the gem-setting department, which then appears to have released them over the following five years or so as they finished setting various blingy wonders.

Insta : haywood_milton_rolex

Yes Haywood...Please don't share any more.
Those are highly guarded and should not be made public.
Most people who have them won't post them for that reason.
But as all can now see they DO exist.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by R.W.T.

Yes Haywood...Please don't share any more.
Those are highly guarded and should not be made public.
Most people who have them won't post them for that reason.
But as all can now see they DO exist.

I'm grateful that Haywood shared the document, and not asking for more, it is indeed interesting to know that these exist.

At the same time, I'm wondering why they are so highly guarded and why you think that they shouldn't be made public. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the danger. Except maybe that Rolex would be unhappy that it was done. I'm not making trouble, truly asking out of curiosity.

[Filipão]

I don't get it why now Rolex is so fussy about this. Up to the mid nineties all my queries regarding production dates were answered without a blink.

I've disclosed a part of those letters in another thread.

[Fredrik]

Those lists can be used to identify counterfeit cases with "wrong" serial numbers. Consequently they can also be used by counterfeiters to produce cases with "correct" serial numbers.

In general, at least where I am from, internal documents are usually considered trade secrets and publishing them could be considered industrial espionage depending on what it is.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Fredrik

Those lists can be used to identify counterfeit cases with "wrong" serial numbers. Consequently they can also be used by counterfeiters to produce cases with "correct" serial numbers.

In general, at least where I am from, internal documents are usually considered trade secrets and publishing them could be considered industrial espionage depending on what it is.

A watch with a date stamp on the case back and a serial number on the owners certificate is hardly a trade secret worth an industrial espionage classification and they are not Rolex internal documents.

I have a DJ36 with a case back date stamping and original papers but I’m not disclosing this to you for obvious reasons.

Based on the disagreements regarding Rolex manufacturing dates and the span of production dates for some models do the two reasons given in your first paragraph really fly high?

The information currently available has enough detail to pin an approximate date on most watches.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Fredrik

Those lists can be used to identify counterfeit cases with "wrong" serial numbers. Consequently they can also be used by counterfeiters to produce cases with "correct" serial numbers.

In general, at least where I am from, internal documents are usually considered trade secrets and publishing them could be considered industrial espionage depending on what it is.

Industrial espionage? Trade secrets? I never knew this. I guess I'll keep my serial number / case back chart to myself.

[Fredrik]

Originally Posted by springer

Industrial espionage? Trade secrets? I never knew this. I guess I'll keep my serial number / case back chart to myself.

You may of course trace every single Rolex Oyster ever produced and publish your results. I was referring to the internal Rolex documents of which parts were attached by Haywood_Milton earlier in the thread.

There are some special watches made in very small batches that have very specific serial number ranges that might not always be sequential. This is gold for those counterfeiting for instance 60s Daytonas.