1601 and 16013 were made along side of each other?

Vintage Rolex Discussion

1601 and 16013 were made along side of each other?

Joined: April 21st, 2007, 10:15 am

April 7th, 2017, 9:34 am #1

I came across a 16013 with a 5,208 mln number, as well as a 1601 with a 5,244 number.
So the newer 16013 has an older number than the 1601.
How is that possible? Any idea's? Were they made next to each other for a period of time?
Or did Rolex apply the numbers a bit at random?
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 21st, 2007, 10:15 am

April 10th, 2017, 10:15 am #2

I assumed that these kinds of things would interest people more than showed sofar...
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 21st, 2013, 1:24 pm

April 10th, 2017, 3:40 pm #3

I came across a 16013 with a 5,208 mln number, as well as a 1601 with a 5,244 number.
So the newer 16013 has an older number than the 1601.
How is that possible? Any idea's? Were they made next to each other for a period of time?
Or did Rolex apply the numbers a bit at random?
... that it's simply a matter of using up whatever is left of the 'old' cases, movements, dials etc., while starting to produce the very first 'new' ones. From a business standpoint, this seems like a logical way to make for a seamless transition. Also, I would consider the overlap in serial numbers that you mention to be quite small (a few weeks at the most?). So I find this a more logical explanation than Rolex applying the serial numbers at random.
Last edited by ramone83 on April 10th, 2017, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 21st, 2007, 10:15 am

April 10th, 2017, 7:27 pm #4

logically before the production of 16013 / 16030 case would have begun. (I assumed that modelnrs were applied on the case production line.)
Maybe the serial nr was applied on a completed watch, just before it would have been shipped to its buyer (or AD). And with both unsold 1601's, and 16013 models already completed, maybe that is how they got mixed up?
So does anybody know when a serial is applied? On a case, or on a complete watch?

Reply
Like
Share

Joined: November 25th, 2011, 11:35 am

April 11th, 2017, 2:13 pm #5

I have seen some cases where the engravings of the serial numbers are not original from the manufacturer. An example is where someone has wanted to have their watch match paperwork with the same serial numbers. This would be more common with older Day Date models, but in this game nothing is bullet proof especially with modern technology. Not saying that there has been foul play, but just a speculation. Reminds me of a previous discussion on this forum a couple of months ago regarding a dubious gold case where the serial number was not in the same range of that model number

http://www.network54.com/Forum/207593/m ... n+p+serial
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 21st, 2007, 10:15 am

April 12th, 2017, 9:48 am #6

I checked both numbers intensively, and they are identical in engravings (and minor corrosion spotting on top of that.)
Both lack papers, by the way.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 28th, 2008, 11:45 pm

April 12th, 2017, 2:26 pm #7

I came across a 16013 with a 5,208 mln number, as well as a 1601 with a 5,244 number.
So the newer 16013 has an older number than the 1601.
How is that possible? Any idea's? Were they made next to each other for a period of time?
Or did Rolex apply the numbers a bit at random?
You see this at the same time with the 1680 and 16800 models around the 6 million SN. Also the 1665 SD was produced into the early 80s- as late as 83 I believe, and the 16660 was certainly out before that so the two SDs were running concurrently also.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: November 2nd, 2005, 8:46 pm

April 14th, 2017, 6:46 am #8

I came across a 16013 with a 5,208 mln number, as well as a 1601 with a 5,244 number.
So the newer 16013 has an older number than the 1601.
How is that possible? Any idea's? Were they made next to each other for a period of time?
Or did Rolex apply the numbers a bit at random?
and had those early serials on 16030 aswell

cheers
christian
Reply
Like
Share