2 Franken Subs-thoughts please

[mitchbaria]

No problem, your welcome ...I don't claim to have all the answers these watches are vintage and nearing thirty and even forty years old in some cases...all I can do is give you my best guess based on personal experience, I can tell you that after all the searching I did to find the perfect dial I still winded up compromising to a certain extent...The dial you've got there in the shotgun watch is what I would consider to be excellent and with a trip to pbdad will be amazing....

Refinished simply means repainted, some cases completely redone and some just touched up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[wampa]

It's been emotional-my head hurts

Seems there is plenty of discussion about the skinny Coronet 168000 dial elsewhere too

 

[mitchbaria]

Here's my honest opinion... And it is based on my skill level not yours...I would take the tritium markers and pearl in sub1 and put them in the shotgun watch, then I would send the shotgun watch to pbdad to make it mind boggling,,,,then I would sell the other watch pieced out go recoup some of my funds....good luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[mitchbaria]

It's been emotional-my head hurts

Seems there is plenty of discussion about the skinny Coronet 168000 dial elsewhere too

Lol welcome to the wonderful world of frankens!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Dukes]

What a fantastic and informative thread this turned out to be.

I think we'd get the same result putting any frankens head to head.

 

[alligoat]

WHOA, WHOA! Mitchbaria is all WRONG! Dial #1 is beautiful and fine. It is a 16800 dial circa 1984 or so- same fonts as the matte dial 16800 dials that preceded it. And there's nothing wrong with the insert on Sub 1- it's of the same vintage, c. 1984, as the dial. The seller did sell you a gen dial and insert, wampa!

Mitch, you got it wrong! Wampa showed you some other gen dials of the 16800 era and they're the same- study those dials. Also, Wampa's #1 sub dial has not been redone.

Sub #2's dial is not in very good shape- the tritium is degrading badly. Was it exposed to water or moisture- I don't know. This is a later dial from the 16610 era. The insert is also from that era- note the boxy 4 in 40.

 

[shotgun]

Beautiful my Super Franken Submariner .. I'm sorry it sold!
It 'a watch truly spectacular!


But there is always a replica.. very close to the genuine but rep.. do not forget ...!

 

[jerkstore]

I think both dials are gen and not refinished.

Too many "skinny coronet" examples just like it--fonts and all.

 

[shotgun]

I think both dials are gen and not refinished.

Too many "skinny coronet" examples just like it--fonts and all.

Dial in my ex Watch is 1000% Genuine...purchased and installed by me!!

No doubt about it!

 

[mitchbaria]

Alligoat, the little "R" of oyster is centered beneath the Big "R" in Rolex.... that didn't happen until the nineties and if you'll look at all the 16610's they're all like this......

The "R" placement in sub 1 makes that dial either rep or refinished much later then the 16800 or 168000.....

Beyond telling you that I'm right, and it doesn't matter if you believe it or not.... I'll not reopen this discussion.... the shotgun watch short of the lume breaking down is a perfect example of a 16800 dial....

 

[live1]

shotgun have u really sold that crazy sean lv franken

 

[mitchbaria]

WHOA, WHOA! Mitchbaria is all WRONG! Dial #1 is beautiful and fine. It is a 16800 dial circa 1984 or so- same fonts as the matte dial 16800 dials that preceded it. And there's nothing wrong with the insert on Sub 1- it's of the same vintage, c. 1984, as the dial. The seller did sell you a gen dial and insert, wampa!

Mitch, you got it wrong! Wampa showed you some other gen dials of the 16800 era and they're the same- study those dials. Also, Wampa's #1 sub dial has not been redone.

Sub #2's dial is not in very good shape- the tritium is degrading badly. Was it exposed to water or moisture- I don't know. This is a later dial from the 16610 era. The insert is also from that era- note the boxy 4 in 40.

This is a untouched Gen 16800 dial

Do you see the difference??
Look at the font,letter placement,, you cant tell me that Dial #1 isnt a Yuki or refinished dial,,, Maybe you need to study these dial's!!

 

[KBH]

Beyeler, Singer, Stern, Lemrich and Metelem are just some of the Swiss dial makers who produced dials for various Rolex models. You guys are doing mental masturbation trying to figure out the intricacies of older Rolex dials.

I don't know for sure when Rolex started making them all in house but good luck and happy arguing.

 

[Ephry73]

I think both dials are gen and not refinished.

Too many "skinny coronet" examples just like it--fonts and all.

Right. There have been gen reprints with the offset - and skinny coronets. For sure. I have a gen 16808 dial just like that. What I meant is that for the build the disk could be different. As suggested before two watches can be made into one superb watch leaving two very good builds with one being much better/ accurate than the other. The st cases are great canvases for great builds. It's all up to the op and what direction to take. Shallow rehaut, long coronet, or ...

 

[alligoat]

This is a untouched Gen 16800 dial

Do you see the difference??
Look at the font,letter placement,, you cant tell me that Dial #1 isnt a Yuki or refinished dial,,, Maybe you need to study these dial's!!

Mitch, this is a later dial- obviously you don't see the difference. And the crown guards on this sub are very suspect. I suggest you go to VRF and study the early 16800 dials. I own two gen 16800s and they don't look anything like this watch you just posted. I'm not going to get in a pissing match- you just need to back off since I don't think you know what you're talking about and you need to post good examples- like the ones wampa did.

 

[Rudy40]

Mitch, this is a later dial- obviously you don't see the difference. And the crown guards on this sub are very suspect. I suggest you go to VRF and study the early 16800 dials. I own two gen 16800s and they don't look anything like this watch you just posted. I'm not going to get in a pissing match- you just need to back off since I don't think you know what you're talking about and you need to post good examples- like the ones wampa did.

I was the one that found that picture of the Gen 16800 you are saying
is very suspect! It's a GEN!,,,, what's suspect about the Gen crown gaurds???

And this is a picture of a Gen 16800 that came off TRF,,,,,,,, that i posted,,,,, LOL!!!,,, Really????,,,, Suspect????,,,,, Its a GEN !!!
:cheers:

 

[alligoat]

Rudy, it's a later dial, I didn't say it wasn't gen. And yes, I don't like the crown guards- they are thicker than usual.
Here's an R2xx,xxx 168000 with a similar dial and thick cgs- this would be 1988.


Wampa's dial is 1984 as I've said before.
Here's a 7.1m matte dial sub (c. 1982)- thinner crown guards and the same dial print as wampa's only matte and w/o the wg surrounds which came out in 1984.

 

[mitchbaria]

The R's the word Rolex didn't get moved over til the 16610 model.....

This is where Sub would say "ya dope" but I'm much nicer....and if you look at the R placement in the watches you just pictured you'd see your making my point.....

 

[alligoat]

I give up Mitch! You're way too smart for me. BTW what is your point? These are gen dials, so what's your argument? Did you ever go to VRF and look at the gen dials? Wampa's dial is gen so get off that horse. Your dials are late. These aren't Yuki dials so admit they're gen and let's get down the road.

" The R's the word Rolex didn't get moved over til the 16610 model....."
I failed English class so maybe you could rephrase this sentence so that I can understand what you're trying to say. Are you from CONUS?

 

[mitchbaria]

Listen edit! ..the dials you just posted are gen ,the R placement is as it should be on both.... the sub1 watch has incorrect printing for the it to be gen...... why can't you see the capitol "R" in Rolex is over too far in relation to the words beneath it to be period correct?