Forums Latest Members

My new 1600 Datejust - everything okay with it?

  1. wolfrichter Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    40
    Likes
    61
    Hey everyone,
    about 10 days ago, I bought this beautiful Datejust (my first Rolex ever) from a trusted seller on C24. I'm abolutely in love with the watch, though I thought I should ask the pro's whether you guys think that it actually is all original.

    My "research" before I bought the watch:::book::
    Lume plots and hands show an almost identical slight vanilla-hue, not extremely strong but in line with others of that age (1970). The hands show some stronger patina on the metal, though this is hardly visible on the wrist. As it is from 1970, the non-sigma dial should/can be correct if I'm not mistaken. The date-wheel has all the open 6's and 9's one could wish for. Writing on the dial is crisp and spacing in line with many other DJ of that time.
    The jubilee is obviously a replacement (198x-ish), but the condition is pretty good so thats hardly a negative. Older Jubilees come up from time to time, even cheaper than what I could sell mine for.
    The case has obviously been polished, but it is quite well done, isn't it? Didn't take off too much metal I think.

    If anyone could just approve of my "research" above, or just confirm that dial and hands are correct and polishing is not too bad, I would sleep better by far. To be honest, I'm a bit afraid of the answer. :eek:
    So, here are the photos:

    IMG_2524.JPG
    IMG_9872-2.jpg

    This one shows the vanilla-lume quite well:
    IMG_2511.JPG
     
  2. waterproofpt Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    263
    Likes
    1,170
    For this being your first Rolex, I would say you’ve made a good assessment. Hands are correct for the dial with matching lume. A photo of the inscriptions between the lugs would confirm the model as 1600 as does the smooth bezel and piepan dial.
     
    Benbradstock likes this.
  3. Servius Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    220
    Likes
    443
    Hello,

    If you slept well the past 10 days... Why worrying now? ;)

    And we can see that you’re afraid of the answer : impossible to correctly assess the condition of the case with those pics, lugholes and edges have to be visible :whistling:

    Far from being an expert (but that’s a reference I’m hunting since a few months), here’s my 2 cents : that watch looks very good to me !
     
    Benbradstock likes this.
  4. waterproofpt Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    263
    Likes
    1,170
    I might add that its a little hard to tell the amount of wear on the bracelet from your photo. But there is some gap between links there. If it is well worn it can be refurbished or you can just enjoy it as is.
     
  5. Dan S Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    13,110
    Likes
    30,121
    I'm not seeing any obvious issues based on those photos. The watch looks legit. I have a 1603 with the same dial from the same general time-frame. It's better to post serial number than year for accuracy, since nobody really knows the year. As for polishing, DJs are almost always polished to some extent, but as long as the lugs aren't unattractively narrow, I wouldn't worry about it.

    date_just_1603.jpg
     
  6. Scarecrow Boat 5000 Candles in the Wind Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    2,547
    Likes
    10,763
    You have added about 3,640 days to OP’s initial purchase timeframe ;)
     
    wolfrichter and Servius like this.
  7. Servius Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    220
    Likes
    443
    Well I just realised that I was monitoring this watch sale on a very popular platform for a long time...

    I had doubts at the time about the dial lume (positionning appeared too close to markers to me) and thought that I could get better for the price considering the case condition.

    And when I saw it listed as sold, regretted not buying it. 1600 in good condition doesn’t look that common.
     
    wolfrichter likes this.
  8. Scarecrow Boat 5000 Candles in the Wind Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    2,547
    Likes
    10,763
    @Dan S would the position/alignment of the crown on the OP be of any concern? It looks slightly offset.
    B3C009C6-E72B-4466-B7B0-3E5D5CF91F1C.jpeg BF410E46-7711-4BD3-91AB-660A17CA8DEE.jpeg


    When comparing to yours
    F9288C9A-D32E-49BC-B13D-BA267BA04064.jpeg
     
    Edited Mar 27, 2021
    Benbradstock and wolfrichter like this.
  9. wolfrichter Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    40
    Likes
    61
    Forgot to mention this. I found that a bit weird too, but I compared it with a lot four-digit DJ on the internet and it didn't seem uncommon that they are not perfectly aligned. I hope... Didn't realize that from the seller's photos.
     
  10. wolfrichter Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    40
    Likes
    61
    The inscriptions are correct, I checked that. :)

    I started watching as the price was around 4.2k.
    Then at some point I checked my watch list at 1am and it was sub-4k. I suggested an even lower price not suspecting them to accept it. Well, here we are :D

    I have to check that lume spacing. Have not spent a second thinking about that. :/
     
  11. Canuck Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    10,808
    Likes
    28,470
    A picture of my 1990 model 1603 shows the same view of the crown and the 60-minute hash mark. This watch is completely original and virtually untouched. Your dial is not a problem.
     
    nicks, JwRosenthal and wolfrichter like this.
  12. Dan S Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    13,110
    Likes
    30,121
  13. Dan S Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    13,110
    Likes
    30,121
    Let's see this one. ;)
     
  14. JwRosenthal Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    11,946
    Likes
    30,390
    The coronet is slightly offset on my 14000, it was not uncommon.
     
    Scarecrow Boat likes this.
  15. Canuck Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    10,808
    Likes
    28,470
    9666C7A9-6967-45EC-85DB-D9D668BD4C7B.jpeg
     
    Dan S likes this.
  16. timoss Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    775
    Likes
    957
    I'm sorta surprised that this was "within spec" for Rolex...
     
  17. JwRosenthal Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    11,946
    Likes
    30,390
    You would be surprised :rolleyes:
     
  18. T<25 Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    318
    Likes
    1,380
    What a cool 1600 on bracelet. This reference is super versatile. I like it on leather for better contrast.
     
  19. AngelDeVille Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    167
    Likes
    321
    She looks good! Under 4K is a good price for a 4 digit in that condition.
     
  20. kip595 Mar 27, 2021

    Posts
    861
    Likes
    1,521
    I tend to agree with those above - Nice example for occasional or even daily wear (if kept in good service), not bad at all for under 4k, and the dial seems good to my eyes - FWIW although I've no photos anymore my brief dalliance with a 1603 had a similarly 'off' coronet similar to the OP's.