Rolex Submariner 16610LV (Lunette Vert) - The 'true' Anniversary Submariner

[donaldejose]

Alvanado

Do you think (or know) whether or not the LV variations you have pointed out are factory errors or deliberate intended changes?

I suspect (but don't know) the variations are insignificant enough they may not have been deliberate changes but rather may have been slight errors made by suppliers (or by Rolex itself) and since they were considered so minor Rolex sent them to the assembly line anyway (assuming someone at Rolex really did identify them as part of their quality control of parts). If that is right, one could say these visual variations are a visual measure of Rolex gen quality control (which is perhaps not as great as we sometimes assume ?).

I know there are certain larger design changes Rolex deliberately made over the years, such as going to the "maxi dial" and "maxi case" for submariners. But the small variations you noted seem too small to be deliberate design changes and more likely can be called a lack of quality control over parts used?

Do you, or other Rolex experts, have an opinion on this?

 

[alvinado]

Hi Donald, you asked, so here is my answer.

IMO,

1) They are changes Rolex made to distinguish batches to batches of different LV models. I got grounds to back me up on this, Notice that the font on some years are thicker than others but the font type remains the same? Rolex has always used this font on their watches and it is their trademark.

2) The oyster perpetual datejust spacing was changed over the years, but they were done in a symmetrical order. For example, if the oyster was shifted to the left, datejust will be shifted to the right symmetrically. If the fonts were stretched, it was stretched symmetrically.

I am still insistent on the m misalignment issue..

On the gen, the 1000ft = 300m is always stretched

and the FakeMaster gold , the 1000ft=300m is not stretched, so this is what caused the missaglined m. This represents the lowest echelons of sub reps, the 15-20 dollars version from the factories

Why do I say that.
The m alignment is one of the first tell on a rep submariner. Rolex is the most copied brand on earth and they know about the rep scene, trust me on that. The misaligned m's was the first thing to be know to rolex employees to look out for a fake! When reps evolve, rolex evolved too, they made subtle changes to the design and matching it with the serial number and the year of production, they can distinguish a fake without even opening the case-back! But no matter what Rolex does, they will NEVER produce a watch with misalign m's. Why? It has became a trademark for a submariner .

You ask for an opinion so this is it. misalign m's are big No-No. So in my opinion( And ONLY my opinion) The FM gold sub with misaligned m's is a poorly replicated Rolex.

No offenses to anyone here, one man poison may be another meat!

 

[NaviChief]

Thank you for sharing your wonderful work

 

[donaldejose]

Great observations and good logic. All very interesting.

I am glad to hear your opinion that all the variations you identified were knowingly produced by Rolex. The other logical alternative would be sloppy Rolex quality control which I would not be so happy to hear was your conclusion.
Rolex would be able to tell different batches apart by simply noting the serial number at the start and end of each batch so if Rolex intentionally made these variations I suppose it must have meant they wanted to be able to visually tell the different batches apart without looking at the serial number. Makes sense.

 

[RolexAddict]

guys, just stop masturbation,

I have found this, and you are concerned donaldjose and alvinado :

When you get infos or a link, the basic rules are to give the name of the member who gives you the background source

This story started in this topic :
http://forum.replica-watch.info/vb/showthread.php/perfect-cg-s-p521974#post-521974

some extracts from the third page

Notice the difference in the green bezel color of the two LVs pictured above. Which is "more accurate to gen" and which is "crap ugly?" I have a Noobmariner LV but the bezel is more an olive green, even more so than the second photo, rather than the more lime green, like the first photo. I have seen gens with different green colors but I have not seen a gen benzel as olive green as mine (guess mine is "crap ugly"). Seems like Rolex used different greens at different times. From the photos I have seen of the BKLM/WM9 LV it uses a more lime green bezel. My preference is for the more olive green color; but that is just my preference. Olive green goes much better with the color tones in my clothing (like tans and browns).

here we go... thats was my answer and the link after some education I got

in fact it comes from my camera, my insert really doesn't look so olive green like on my picture

interesting link about the different LV models producted
here

Really GREAT link. Tictac. I have never seen this web page. It seems to me this link should be read by anyone seeking a "perfect to gen" LV.

Also note the author's sentence: "On investigation of the model it became apparent Rolex distinguished early first models from later counterparts through subtle changes in design." This is probably true of all all Rolex models and it may well have not been by intent at all. The watch designer probably didn't say "lets make this minor change in the next run of watches we produce." Rather, as groups of parts were either made or purchased in runs certain unintended variations likely occurred and Rolex used those parts anyway considering the variations to be too small to be of significance. That is the same attitude I have about reps: certain variations are too small to be of significance. Some people seem to get a big kick out of demonstrating their expertise by criticizing every little flaw they can find in a rep. I would encourage us to distinguish between large obvious flaws and minor insignificant variations. When seeking a perfect copy of a gen one would need to specify which year of the gen? If Rolex can accept "subtle changes in the design" why cannot we also accept "subtle differences in the rep compared to the gen."?

What type of changes did Rolex allow and accept without demeriting the watch? The author lists: shape of the O in Rolex differs, R in Oyster in relation to R in Rolex differs (aligned Rs and we worry about aligned m's), positioning of swiss made differs, shape of number 40 on bezel differs, different shades of green, different fonts used, etc. The various photographs show the different green colors but you can never know for sure how much is an effect of the lighting unless you are looking at a photograph containing two watches in the same lighting.

Basically, it seems to me we are most fortunate today in that a very large number of reps demonstrate about the same narrow range of variation as does the gen LV. Yes, some reps still have large obvious flaws such as a rehaut that looks like a wok. Some flaws can easily be seen at a glance because they create a large impression on the overall look of the watch. But others are so minor "nitpicking" about them makes about as much sense as calling certain LV gens "junk" or "cheap" or "full of obvious tells" because they have minor variations. Undoubtedly, those who have gone before us have put some pressure on the rep producers to improve their product. That is an admirable service to us all. But reviewers go too far when they use such loaded language as "cheap watch" for a rep with small variations at the level of the variations in the gen LV. The phrases "inexpensive watch" with "minor variations" can describe the same differences but carries much less negative connotation. Let's not be so self righteous that we won't accept the same level of variations Rolex accepts in its gens!

sounds like we have rolex Masters here,

Just remember, I introduced here this Sub LV article, it was just for infos... no to try to be a Rolex guru

so, just stay at your little level and stop to use for your own business, satisfaction and ego, Next time please, donaldjose and alvinado, avoid feeding and showing off with the efforts produced by others, or give a mention of the source

 

[ThinkBachs]

guys, I need to just stop masturbation, ...sounds like we have Jedi Masters here, I wish I could be more like you guys!

It may be way too hard for me so, I'll just stay at my little level and stop to watch your business, with satisfaction and no ego. Next time please, donaldjose and alvinado, watch my YouTube video of me feeding and showing off with the kittens I found in a barn while looking for old pennies.

As soon as I quote this he'll probably edit his post- which is why I'm saving it here! :lol:

 

[donaldejose]

For the record, Tictac is correct. On April 11, 2010 Tictac posted in a different thread the reference to the web page from which much of the material presented at the start of this thread was excerpted by alvinado and posted on April 24, 2010. The material was great as I said in the earlier thread and the excerpt starting this thread remains great material as I have said in this thread. All these minor variations are fascinating and demonstrate there is no one gen LV but rather many (slightly different) gen LVs. Most likely this is also true of all Rolex watches which have been produced over a long period of time.

The rest of Tictac's post I am afraid I just don't understand so cannot comment upon. If I have done anything to offend him, I apologize.

 

[w@tchlume]

bump to a superb thread, great work alvinado!

 

[trksh-bzr]

are we gonna see any undressed wifes in this thread????? they too can vary!!! mine has aligned B..... the details discussed over and over again here are getting boring. to start with the the point of the thread was however informative, it's certainly cool to know that even within gens there are subtile differences from one year to another, but some of the members taking it to, having an inaccurate rep, being nearly better than having a more accurate one is just boooring and dumb!

 

[alvinado]

guys, just stop masturbation,

I have found this, and you are concerned donaldjose and alvinado :

When you get infos or a link, the basic rules are to give the name of the member who gives you the background source

Tictac, I am sorry but you are not the member who has given me the background source, it was written by a VRF member in which I quote his nickname at the start of the passage, I edited some of the details inside to keep it to a readable length.

So TICTAC, my question to you is that you think that you deserve recognition from a link that you posted and that I have never seen? So you assume I took "YOUR" link and posted it here. Grow up, the internet is for everybody. I do surf other forums to get good data to post here, so what is your point?

And I am not trying to be a rolex Guru bud, just sharing something that was in my opinion, isnt't that's what forums are for?

It was very poor form of you to say something that obviously was not true, The author's name was obviously mentioned, so you did obviously flame me for no apparent reason.

I need a reason why you are doing that? If I am wrong , I apologise. But if you are , you apologise. I am seldom pissed, but you manage to make me pissed.

Sounds like we have rolex Masters here,

Just remember, I introduced here this Sub LV article, it was just for infos... no to try to be a Rolex guru

so, just stay at your little level and stop to use for your own business, satisfaction and ego, Next time please, donaldjose and alvinado, avoid feeding and showing off with the efforts produced by others, or give a mention of the source

Bud you did not, you simply posted a link to this article. Is this article written by you?

*pm sent to tictac.

 

[trksh-bzr]

Just remember, I introduced here this Sub LV article, it was just for infos... no to try to be a Rolex guru

so, just stay at your little level and stop to use for your own business, satisfaction and ego, Next time please, donaldjose and alvinado, avoid feeding and showing off with the efforts produced by others, or give a mention of the source][/QUOTE



It's pretty obvious that you are "not" concerned about missing out on any honour and respect for your hard work here huh???
I belive that the idea of this and other similar forums, is to spread knowledge. that is infact what happened here!! no one stole the work of anyone- yet you are so disappointed that you lost out on 4 seconds of fame for posting the link to this article here!!!! that's just nuts man...sorry.

 

[donaldejose]

A wise man once told me that you can accomplish a whole lot more in life if you don't worry about whether or not you get the credit for what you do.

I have seen so many instances of person A getting credit for something person B started (and A just finished or repeated) and person B getting so mad they stopped doing more good work because they were afraid "recognition" would be "stolen" by someone else. It has happened to me countless times. Sure it's irritating; but sometimes A didn't even know of B's prior work and did not try to "steal" anything, as happened in this post.

 

[SUMIKITO]

A great 16610 LV educational post on the green anniversary Sub !! Thanks !!

 

[benjji]

simple question for LV 166 esxpert: apart tc or bk, which is better between Noobmariner or BP?

noob

BP