Questions about Rolex 1016

The dial is a later replacement. While the hands are the correct length, the tritium in them is not particularly attractive, to my eyes at least. Finally, the holes in the lugs for the bracelet pins look to have been enlarged, maybe to take the bigger Submariner pins.

I’ve never seen a lug on one of these as bent as the 11 o’clock lug on this one, which is also smaller than the other three. I’m sure it could be remedied, but at a cost.

While I don’t think the price is completely crazy, it’s not any deal — particularly because not having the correct frog foot dial is a big deal. I’d save my money for one closer to correct.

If I can find the correct 1016 hands for mine (after many years), I know you’ll be able to find your 1016 within only one year. Nice ones do come up.

All above good information, lugs to thin for me. And the price is at tops. I bought one last year 1.6 with a later matte dial for not much more than half bid shown. Wait for a better but be aware a period nice example is not cheap.

The dial is not a later replacement. This is a Mark 2 matte dial, which has only been seen on 1016s with a 2.1m serial, which is the serial listed for this watch (https://explorer1016.com/matte/mark-2/). The frog foot / Mark 1 dial was around over a large range (at least 1.5-3.5m), which includes this serial, but it was not the exclusive dial over that range.


I've bought both Explorer and Submariner spring bars and the pin width is the same, its just that the pin length is longer on the Submariner pins. They weren't wider, so not sure if that's explain the enlargement.

I agree with the rest of the opinions on the lugs and case. Of note, it also has a service crystal.

I agree. I was in error.

I have a 1016 and I can tell you, from the pictures, it doesn’t seem to be a very good example.

I like what I see in the photos. Obviously, I’d want caseback and movement photos before I committed.

I also agree it seems expensive. If it were really nice, it might be worth it at that price, but the polishing and those lug holes (position and size) worry me a little. Has the seller told you anything else about the watch?

@Canuck is a wiser, more knowledgeable collector than am I. But, any vintage watch is a potential money pit — in ways that a new watch won’t be. If you’re risk adverse, then there are safer collectibles. And, the more money you lay out for purchase, the more money you’re likely to be willing to pay out for unexpected repairs. I assume you know this already.

Second, I’d much rather be looking for Rolex 15xx parts than many of the 40’s era chronographs that we see (and maybe want). Sure, spare 15xx movements and parts are expensive, but you can find them — less so for those old chronos. Now, if @Canuck says that there have been 15xx parts he hasn’t been able to obtain at all, I’ll accept his superior experience — I’m not a watchmaker, but I’ve yet to have a problem servicing any of the 15xx watches I own, all of which came to me as used. Fingers crossed.

Finally, $18k for a watch, any watch, is crazy. Proof of this is: How many people would you be happy to tell you’d spent that much on a single watch? I know it embarrasses me to admit to most of the people I know that I spent that much. I generally avoid telling anyone but you people here.

(Indeed, I’m sure there are plenty of OF members who can’t imagine ever spending anything like that much on a watch, and others here who think that spending that much on a watch is simply fuçked up. I’m sure they’re right.)

I’m a fan of Rolex’s family of 15xx movements. They are better than what came before (I think) and, properly maintained, they will last a very very long time — I am told. I guess my children will find out. 😁

If you can wait, a better Explorer will certainly come along. For $12k, this one would be a compelling deal, which it is not at $18k. If I received sufficient assurances about the condition of the movement, I’d try to get it for under $15-16k. If not, I’d wait.