A question on 1680 200/660 dials

I am having a discussion about the various styles of dial on the early 1680s. One argument is that the very first dials can be distinguished by the fact that the 6s on 660 are closed. Another argument is that the Mk1 dial is typified by the fact that the F on 660FT is shorter and that the word "Submariner" is slightly narrower than the 200m= 660FT underneath it. I am curious what others believe is the Mk1 dial traits? I do wonder if there actually is such a thing as a Mk1 dial on this watch as it seems Rolex used more than one dial-maker...so plausible that two different types of dial were made at the outset. Thoughts?

Hi there!

This article will provide you with pretty much all you need to know:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...nce+%28Long%29

Cheers,

Nick

hi,

here is all information postet you need:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...nce+%28Long%29

Haha beat you Marcel...:supercool: :gut:

....'great minds think alike' =)

Cheers,

Nick

Thanks Gentlemen.... it clears up one issue for me...namely differentiating between Mk 2 and Mk3. I have seen other research which suggests what Mark calls Mk1 with the closed 6 actually came later. I think if you can correlate the serial numbers showing that the closed 6 combines consistently with lower serial numbers, it would tend to suggest that closed 6s came first. I have a 1680 arriving tomorrow. Its serial number is bang in between the Mk1 and Mk2 range. It has the open 6 and would come under Mark's definition of a Mk2 dial.

Delgado's analysis of the dials suggests that the closed 6 is the second issue dial and is pre-dated by what Mark calls the Mk2. I guess with vintage Rolex, nothing is ever certain.

http://doubleredseadweller.com/rs1.htm

can you post a picture of your dial?

http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/...65/1680_r2.jpg

its a MK II dial.

MK I is defined by the long f at 200m = 660 ft, it reaches over the t.

I would agree with that- mkII in my opinion. Philipp Stahll did quite a bit of research on the meters first red subs. Check this classic post out:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...+versions+here!!

Cheers,

Nick

Delgado does argue otherwise, but I am guessing that research may be out of date. Also, I would guess the chronology of the serial numbers points in the direction of it being as Mark's analysis shows and as you suggest too.

Thanks for the thoughts and for pointing out the various research. I have to say, I cannot wait to see it tomorrow. Stamped 69, with punched papers and original box and bracelet. I have never owned a red sub before, so am very excited about it.

I think Mark's article is the most up to date. A huge amount of research was undertaken a few years ago by Philipp and I know a lot 'constructive discussion' occurred on VRF between him and a few others, who at the time believed there were only 3-4 dial variations!!! If you use the search function on VRF you'll find some very interesting reading on this topic!


Make sure you post some pics of your new addition when you get it!


Cheers,

Nick

hi guy,

whats the serial of your watch?

Zitat:

---

Zitat von GuyFawkes

Delgado does argue otherwise, but I am guessing that research may be out of date. Also, I would guess the chronology of the serial numbers points in the direction of it being as Mark's analysis shows and as you suggest too.

---

yes, ed delgado should update his site ;-)

2.2m

Marcus, yours is a late 2.29! so MkII is ok for an early 2.2 serial.