Vintage Beauty>>>>>>>>>>>

[jholbrook]

Ahhhh.....gotta love it!

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/jholbrook/Red%20Submariner/1970c2framed.jpg

[PCS]

1680 is the most beautiful Rolex ever. =)

[OrangeHand]

Yes, this is a very beautiful Rolex watch. :gut:

I have to admit though, that I have learnt to appreciate this vintage model only after seeing it so nicely, and so often, presented in this forum. Due to R-L-X the 1680 has become a real dream watch for me. ;)

[jholbrook]

Originally posted by OrangeHand
Yes, this is a very beautiful Rolex watch. :gut:

I have to admit though, that I have learnt to appreciate this vintage model only after seeing it so nicely, and so often, presented in this forum. Due to R-L-X the 1680 has become a real dream watch for me. ;)

I agree 100%! I likely would have never considered a vintage watch until I say the photos of them from guys like Hannes, Percy, Jocke, etc.

You guys are like crack dealers! Shame on you! :tongue: :dr:

[bullibeer]

Fantastic image,... great watch!!!!!!!

RedSub on it's best....

[jholbrook]

Originally posted by bullibeer
Fantastic image,... great watch!!!!!!!

RedSub on it's best....

Thanks for the kind words...I think I'm growing fond of this one. :gut:

[watchman]

:gut: :gut: :gut:

[Bullit]

Great watch, great picture, John. :gut: :gut: :gut:

What kind of camera do you use ?

Erik

[jholbrook]

Originally posted by Bullit
Great watch, great picture, John. :gut: :gut: :gut:

What kind of camera do you use ?

Erik

Just moved up from the Canon 20D to the 40D in the last month. :gut:

[Boris_Koch]

Originally posted by PCS
1680 is the most beautiful Rolex ever. =)

Clearly, in my view, the nicest Sub they ever produced.

Altogether, in my view, the 2 best models they ever came out with were the 1680 and the 1675.

I know that all the rage is about 1665's, 1655's, 1019's, vintage Daytonas, etc. but there is a good reason why the 1675 and 1680 (and probably the 5513) were the biggest selling sports models. Classic look and perfect functionality.

Boris

[jholbrook]

Originally posted by Boris_Koch

Originally posted by PCS
1680 is the most beautiful Rolex ever. =)

Clearly, in my view, the nicest Sub they ever produced.

Altogether, in my view, the 2 best models they ever came out with were the 1680 and the 1675.

I know that all the rage is about 1665's, 1655's, 1019's, vintage Daytonas, etc. but there is a good reason why the 1675 and 1680 (and probably the 5513) were the biggest selling sports models. Classic look and perfect functionality.

Boris

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel a 1680 is superior to a 16610 (cosmetic differences aside)?

[Rolex1970]

i own only 2 vintages, the 6541 (whitout inlay ;( & the 1500 :ka: ;)

Regards

Pascal


From the First Owner; with the History ;) & Missing Inlay:

Meine erste Vintage, aus Erstbesitz: MILGAUSS 6541 (http://www.r-l-x.de/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=63068&sid=)

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3543/milgauss6541002zp3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4906/milgauss6541009fo8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

My "Birth - Year" Watch 1500 Date, with Hands (not modell like ;))

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3583/date1500011ds0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Boris_Koch]

Hello Pascal,,

Have you checked on classicwatchparts.com?

They have some pretty good aftermarket pieces for rare watches, intended precisely for collectors so that they can restore the original look / functionality to they watch.

For sure, it's not the absolute "real" thing, but it would enable you to get the watch back to a more complete configuration, and spare you the thousands of dollars to pay for a NOS one (if ever you found one, that is).

Cheers
Boris

[Boris_Koch]

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel a 1680 is superior to a 16610 (cosmetic differences aside)?

Functionally, a 16610 is superior to a 1680: higher depth rating, quickset date.

But the 1680 was the 1st Sub date, and it's really cosmetically that I much, much prefer it to the 16610.

Cheers

[jholbrook]

Originally posted by Boris_Koch

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel a 1680 is superior to a 16610 (cosmetic differences aside)?

Functionally, a 16610 is superior to a 1680: higher depth rating, quickset date.

But the 1680 was the 1st Sub date, and it's really cosmetically that I much, much prefer it to the 16610.

Cheers

I understand - I'm guessing you're a bit older than I am (37) so I've more grown up with the look of the 16610. I love 'em both, but those white gold markers....ahhhh... :cool:

[jholbrook]

Pascal - VERY, very nice!!

[steve73]

PHANTASTIC! :gut: :gut: :gut:

[Boris_Koch]

I understand - I'm guessing you're a bit older than I am (37) so I've more grown up with the look of the 16610. I love 'em both, but those white gold markers....ahhhh...

Dear John, I'm 37 too. Now, I'm from January 1970, so technically, I could be older than you :twisted:

I guess I just never really warmed up to white gold / metal indexes.

The only exception I will make...is not for a Rolex!

http://www.makedostudio.com/watches/seiko-divers/albums/album29/Mm_2.sized.jpg

[jholbrook]

Originally posted by Boris_Koch

I understand - I'm guessing you're a bit older than I am (37) so I've more grown up with the look of the 16610. I love 'em both, but those white gold markers....ahhhh...

Dear John, I'm 37 too. Now, I'm from January 1970, so technically, I could be older than you :twisted:

I guess I just never really warmed up to white gold / metal indexes.

The only exception I will make...is not for a Rolex!

http://www.makedostudio.com/watches/seiko-divers/albums/album29/Mm_2.sized.jpg

Yep - you're about 3-4 months older than I - April.

Interesting....That Seiko is quite popular, but those hands ruin it for me. :ka: