16710 “NOS” / “NOS” bracelet identification - asking for your help

[bart12]

I would really appreciate the help of some of the knowledgable forum members with my “detective work” by answering the two questions listed at the very bottom.

Here’s part of the back story.. Circa one and a half years ago I purchased a “NOS” 16710 Z-serial 70**** (open papers, initially sold in Dubai, see pictures below). Recently I looked at the pictures of the sales ad again, compared it to other “NOS” 16710 from the same era and realised that mine had more stickers on the bracelet than other examples. Most other models had just one red sticker on the outside of the bracelet right next to the clasp while mine had a total of 3 sticker on the inside and outside of the bracelet. See pictures:






At the beginning of my research, it looked like only replacement bracelets had all of those stickers but then I also found examples of “NOS” watches which had those stickers. However, many of those watches already had either the new case back sticker (no hologram) and/or the barcode on the sticker on the left side of the case. For instance;

Example 1: 16710 Z-serial, weird blue sticker on bracelet (likely applied by third-party seller afterwards), same stickers on bracelet like my watch, however barcode sticker on the left side of the case. See pictures:





Example 2: 16613 F-serial, two outer stickers on bracelet next to the clasp as well as on the SEL, probably no sticker on the inside, no barcode. However not a 1:1 comparison as two-tone watches might have been stickered differently because of the polished center links. See pictures:




Example 3: 16710 without barcode on the side of the case but already the new plastic warranty card (to show inconsistency in terms of when which "new characterics" were introduced). See pictures:




MY QUESTIONS:

1) Could it be that my 16710 Z-serial 70****, which has no barcode on the side of the case and accordingly is presumably older than example 1, was originally fitted with a "EO7" clasp when the presumably newer example 1 was fitted with an older "EO2" clasp?

2) Do you know of any 5-digit stainless steel NOS examples which have: 1) a hologram sticker on the case back, 2) no barcode on the side of the case, 3) a bracelet with more than one sticker? In other words, could my bracelet be a "period correct" NOS bracelet and not just a replacement?

Again, thank you very much for reading this. Any help is greatly appreciated!

[Explorer2polar]

If I owned this watch I would peel the stickers off and wear and enjoy it, to me it seems a real shame that you have bought this watch to keep in an unused state.

I think you should enjoy your watch and forget all this sticker nonsense imho.

[PepsiBezel]

Originally Posted by Explorer2polar

If I owned this watch I would peel the stickers off and wear and enjoy it, to me it seems a real shame that you have bought this watch to keep in an unused state.

I think you should enjoy your watch and forget all this sticker nonsense imho.

We all enjoy things in different ways — Some people enjoy by collecting…

While I would (and do) wear a 16710, I think it’s cool that some have the discipline to keep these time capsules.

[illiguy]

Have you considered whether the watch head is NOS as well as the papers, but the bracelet is a NOS replacement?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[rmagoo57]

Where are current pics of YOUR watch?? That is all that matters. Post a ton of clear pics and we'll let you know anything and everything about YOUR watch. It's either NOS or it isn't.

[garyk]

To each his own but kind of enjoyed seeing someone keeping one like this with the stickers.

[77T]

IMHO those examples that have the long sticker across the clasp have either: 1) never been opened, or 2) been opened and then the sticker replaced.

I’d say yours and the others could be considered NOS
IF and only if they’ve simply been tried on - never coded as sold by the AD - and have all the other new Watch collateral.

Stickers really don’t confirm anything - it’s the actual unsold status that defines NOS.

Again, my


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[dannyp]

Here's one possible explanation: Watch originally came fitted with a Jubilee bracelet and someone, perhaps the selling AD, decided to swap for an Oyster. That would explain "replacement bracelet" stickers on a brand new watch.

Assuming the full kit you received is the original, you can get some sense of the original date of sale based on the included calendar card (looks like 03/04, but a bit blurry). That's before the barcode stickers were introduced.

[SparklesMcgraw]

2003-2004 wouldn’t be a Z serial though so that’s a bit suspect. What are the print dates on the booklets?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by SparklesMcgraw

2003-2004 wouldn’t be a Z serial though so that’s a bit suspect. What are the print dates on the booklets?

Not true 2003-2004 would be a possible Y,F,or,D serial as many serials overlap a year or so, Z serials started from around May 2006.

[faimag]

I think the bracelet codes EO2 and EO7 and pretty much the same. Both are dated 2007 (only the month, Feb vs July, is different) which matches your Z case dated 2006. In most examples I have seen bracelets are either the same year as the case or later, but never earlier.

Regarding stickers, 2 red tabs out and 1 red tab in seems correct. The barcode, I am not sure. But 2006 was around the time the barcode appeared. And given how inconsistently Rolex changes get applied around the world, I wouldn't worry.

The big question for you now is: are you going to keep it in the safe or peel away the stickers and wear it?!?!

Happy 2023!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by faimag

I think the bracelet codes EO2 and EO7 and pretty much the same. Both are dated 2007 (only the month, Feb vs July, is different) which matches your Z case dated 2006. In most examples I have seen bracelets are either the same year as the case or later, but never earlier.

Regarding stickers, 2 red tabs out and 1 red tab in seems correct. The barcode, I am not sure. But 2006 was around the time the barcode appeared. And given how inconsistently Rolex changes get applied around the world, I wouldn't worry.

The big question for you now is: are you going to keep it in the safe or peel away the stickers and wear it?!?!

Happy 2023!

All internet charts only give a indication between X&Y years when the case or clasp was stamped. And seeing clasps are made separate to bracelets both made in there hundreds of thousand's by any chart could be earlier or later. But be are only talking about what IMHO is useless plastic stickers which should be removed at point of sale, surely the watch is the most important bit and not stickers.

[bart12]

Originally Posted by Explorer2polar

If I owned this watch I would peel the stickers off and wear and enjoy it, to me it seems a real shame that you have bought this watch to keep in an unused state.

I think you should enjoy your watch and forget all this sticker nonsense imho.

Not at all what I was asking for and of no help. I already had "happy to provide further information for why I am asking" in my draft put thought it maybe won't be necessary as I was hoping for constructive feedback. But just so you know, I destickered the watch and am wearing it.

[bart12]

Originally Posted by PepsiBezel

We all enjoy things in different ways — Some people enjoy by collecting…

While I would (and do) wear a 16710, I think it’s cool that some have the discipline to keep these time capsules.

Thank you for that, exactly my point :-)

[bart12]

Originally Posted by illiguy

Have you considered whether the watch head is NOS as well as the papers, but the bracelet is a NOS replacement?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Yes indeed, that is one of the thoughts that I have and why I am asking these questions..

[bart12]

Originally Posted by rmagoo57

Where are current pics of YOUR watch?? That is all that matters. Post a ton of clear pics and we'll let you know anything and everything about YOUR watch. It's either NOS or it isn't.

The first four pics are of my watch. Happy to provide hi-res images if needed, didn't want to make the post longer than it already is..

[bart12]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Here's one possible explanation: Watch originally came fitted with a Jubilee bracelet and someone, perhaps the selling AD, decided to swap for an Oyster. That would explain "replacement bracelet" stickers on a brand new watch.

Assuming the full kit you received is the original, you can get some sense of the original date of sale based on the included calendar card (looks like 03/04, but a bit blurry). That's before the barcode stickers were introduced.

That's also a possibility that I thought about. Sorry for the blurry pics, the calendar card says 2007/2008 so is period-correct. Also already has the newer GMT Master II manual which I think is "fair game" as well. Will try to post a video and/or hi-res pics later..

[bart12]

Originally Posted by faimag

I think the bracelet codes EO2 and EO7 and pretty much the same. Both are dated 2007 (only the month, Feb vs July, is different) which matches your Z case dated 2006. In most examples I have seen bracelets are either the same year as the case or later, but never earlier.

Regarding stickers, 2 red tabs out and 1 red tab in seems correct. The barcode, I am not sure. But 2006 was around the time the barcode appeared. And given how inconsistently Rolex changes get applied around the world, I wouldn't worry.

The big question for you now is: are you going to keep it in the safe or peel away the stickers and wear it?!?!

Happy 2023!

THAT's exactly the type of stuff I was looking for, thank you faimag! Why would you say that my Z case is dated 2006, is that just a guess or am I missing something?

So if I understand you correctly you don't see an issue with the "inconsistency" described in my second question?

[bart12]

Originally Posted by padi56

All internet charts only give a indication between X&Y years when the case or clasp was stamped. And seeing clasps are made separate to bracelets both made in there hundreds of thousand's by any chart could be earlier or later. But be are only talking about what IMHO is useless plastic stickers which should be removed at point of sale, surely the watch is the most important bit and not stickers.

Thanks padi, I was hoping that you would provide your input as well. Do I interpret your comment correctly by saying that you do not see an issue in terms of the "inconsistency" as described in my second question?

[bart12]

Hi-res pic of the full set and a video of my watch in case this helps:



Video: https://imgur.com/w8Qo9BB

Thanks for all your help! Would really appreciate any feedback regarding my two specific questions :-)

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by bart12

That's also a possibility that I thought about. Sorry for the blurry pics, the calendar card says 2007/2008 so is period-correct. Also already has the newer GMT Master II manual which I think is "fair game" as well. Will try to post a video and/or hi-res pics later..

Those all seem to line up. Two other things to consider, or look into:

1. No way to really ever "know" this, but sticker type corresponds to when the watch was made, while inclusions (brochure, calendar card, etc.) aside from the warranty correspond to when it is sold. So, there could certainly be a year or more in between.

2. Did all territories start using the barcodes at the same time? If it was for inventory control purposes, is it possible that UAE started receiving those later since the country distributor was not yet using the scanning technology required? This is totally speculative and I've not seen any specific indication of this, but it's a logical possibility.

[dannyp]

Here's the best comparison I can find:

https://www.chrono24.com/rolex/rolex...id19666844.htm

Calendar card is 05/06, so sale date must have been a year or two before yours (unless dealer just stuck an old calendar in with it). However, stickers match exactly.

My guess is that yours lingered in a case for some time, though, and was actually manufactured before this one, as this one comes with the newer style warranty card.

Edit: Again, unless of course different regions began receiving the new cards at different times and UAE got them later.

[CarlOver]

Originally Posted by SparklesMcgraw

2003-2004 wouldn’t be a Z serial though so that’s a bit suspect. What are the print dates on the booklets?

Originally Posted by padi56

Not true 2003-2004 would be a possible Y,F,or,D serial as many serials overlap a year or so, Z serials started from around May 2006.

Paid, you basically said that he was wrong then provided info to support his statement. Please clarify.

[faimag]

Originally Posted by bart12

THAT's exactly the type of stuff I was looking for, thank you faimag! Why would you say that my Z case is dated 2006, is that just a guess or am I missing something?

So if I understand you correctly you don't see an issue with the "inconsistency" described in my second question?

There is a user-compiled database of the Rolex serials and Z dates to 2006-2007.

Yes, the "inconsistency" you see is the real world of Rolex!

The calendar card typically follows the actual date of purchase. The AD would bundle the card with the same year and the next, or the next two years if you purchased towards the end of the year.

So all the pieces in your full set are consistent.

Enjoy your watch and happy 2023!

[bart12]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Here's the best comparison I can find:

https://www.chrono24.com/rolex/rolex...id19666844.htm

Calendar card is 05/06, so sale date must have been a year or two before yours (unless dealer just stuck an old calendar in with it). However, stickers match exactly.

My guess is that yours lingered in a case for some time, though, and was actually manufactured before this one, as this one comes with the newer style warranty card.

Edit: Again, unless of course different regions began receiving the new cards at different times and UAE got them later.

Danny, first of all Happy New Year!

Thank you very much for digging out that perfect example! To me this is enough of a proof that this sort of "sticker combination" is legit and therefore answers my second question.

Also a fair point regarding different territories introducing various features at different times (maybe however barcodes and warranty cards are issued/introduced by Rolex Geneva at once for all markets outside of the US and not something the respective local distributor has any influence in, but that's also just speculation).

As a side note to all of this, one could also argue that if the seller knew that such a sticker combination would not be "period correct" he could have simply removed the additional stickers that would expose the bracelet as a replacement part. But again, a lot of assumptions here as well..

[bart12]

Originally Posted by faimag

There is a user-compiled database of the Rolex serials and Z dates to 2006-2007.

Yes, the "inconsistency" you see is the real world of Rolex!

The calendar card typically follows the actual date of purchase. The AD would bundle the card with the same year and the next, or the next two years if you purchased towards the end of the year.

So all the pieces in your full set are consistent.

Enjoy your watch and happy 2023!

Thanks for your help faimag and Happy New Year to you too! I knew about the database, just thought you had a way to tell from my serial beginning with Z70**** that it must be from 2006 and not 2007 :-)

Sorry if I ask again, just to be sure; even if my watch has a very early Z-serial (Z700***), you don't find it weird that it has a EO7 clasp while example 1 with the barcode on and an unknown Z-serial has a clasp which was manufactured 5 months earlier, correct?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by bart12

Thanks for your help faimag and Happy New Year to you too! I knew about the database, just thought you had a way to tell from my serial beginning with Z70**** that it must be from 2006 and not 2007 :-)

Sorry if I ask again, just to be sure; even if my watch has a very early Z-serial (Z700***), you don't find it weird that it has a EO7 clasp while example 1 with the barcode on and an unknown Z-serial has a clasp which was manufactured 5 months earlier, correct?

That wouldn't worry me in the slightest, in and of itself. Rolex doesn't manufacture case+bracelet+movement all together as a single unit. One of each component will be pulled from the massive stocks available when it's time for final assembly, and if there isn't a strict FIFO policy, I'm sure there are plenty where the watch that ships first has a bracelet made later relative to the watch that ships later with an older bracelet.

I'd only be particularly concerned if, for example, a watch with a warranty dated mid-2005 had a bracelet corresponding to some time in 2008 - where it wouldn't have even been possible for the two to leave the factory together.

[faimag]

Originally Posted by bart12

Thanks for your help faimag and Happy New Year to you too! I knew about the database, just thought you had a way to tell from my serial beginning with Z70**** that it must be from 2006 and not 2007 :-)

Sorry if I ask again, just to be sure; even if my watch has a very early Z-serial (Z700***), you don't find it weird that it has a EO7 clasp while example 1 with the barcode on and an unknown Z-serial has a clasp which was manufactured 5 months earlier, correct?

Yes, the EO7 clasp with Z700 serial matches just fine. But why do to say Z700xxx is an "early" Z? There have been at least 699,999 watches with Z serial before your Z700xxx, no?

[Andad]

A Z7***** would most likely have a 3186 movement?

[bart12]

Originally Posted by dannyp

That wouldn't worry me in the slightest, in and of itself. Rolex doesn't manufacture case+bracelet+movement all together as a single unit. One of each component will be pulled from the massive stocks available when it's time for final assembly, and if there isn't a strict FIFO policy, I'm sure there are plenty where the watch that ships first has a bracelet made later relative to the watch that ships later with an older bracelet.

I'd only be particularly concerned if, for example, a watch with a warranty dated mid-2005 had a bracelet corresponding to some time in 2008 - where it wouldn't have even been possible for the two to leave the factory together.

Glad to hear that. I think often times we look at stuff in much more detail than Rolex themselves (FIFO? Who really cares anyway ) Back to enjoying my watch now :)