Comments:
Rolex bracelet 7206 dates and stamps. Mystery solved.
I thought this would be a great opportunity to highlight the main differences between the 1961 and 1967 dated Rolex Bracelet model 7206. You might say why 61 vs 67, simply because if you look at the two date stamps the 67 can easily be misconstrued as being 61. What triggered this post was a post that I just saw on VFR written by Harrison where he highlighted the key differences between the 61 and the 67 bracelet. In addition I have the two bracelets and was discussing this issue very recently hoping my 67 was a 61 but doubting it because of the slight slant.
Rolex Bracelet 7206
Rolex 7206 pin connector 1958, 1959 big logo, 1960 and 1961. Cant find a 1962.
Rolex 7206 pin connector and broad blade connection
This small review will also solve the mystery of when did Rolex started stamping 7206 on the bracelet.
Rolex 7206 bar vs pin connector. The top is from 1961 and the bottom 1967. Clear difference.
Rolex 7206 post 61 has which has the 7206 stamp.
Rolex 7206 stamp vs no 7206 stamp. Top is from 1961 bottom 1967.
As a matter of fact they (61 vs 67) look almost exactly the same the main difference is as harrison highlighted the fact that the blades are connected with a shorter centerpiece, that is the 61 has a larger center that connects the blades and the 67 has a narrow one. Also was the fact that there is a solid buckle connector versus a pin connector on the buckle end. It is easy to observe in the pictures below. This in itself is a great element but he also inadvertently as far as I'm concerned also solved another mystery which is the mystery of the Rolex 7206 stamping on these bracelets namely what is the cut off date going from no stamp to stamp on the 7206. The Internet experts have always stipulated that the date for the cut off that is no stamp versus stamp 7206 was 1964. In my opinion these buckle differences are more likely the cutoff and design change. I think the types of buckle connectors really is what should trigger the difference between the stamping and no stamping of the 7206. When we look at the 61 bracelet buckle we can see it's different from periods after 1961 so it is easy to extrapolate the fact that this is probably the cut off date not 1964 as has been common wisdom. So I think it is safe to say that this new discovery made by Harrison ties in very well in the cut off date for the 7206 stand versus no stamp. As well as the clear delineation for the 61 bracelet versus later bracelet buckles.
Rolex 7206 date stamp 1961 "61" including 1963, 1964, 1965 and a few more.
Rolex 7206 buckle 61 date stamp top broader vs 7206 dated 67 which is more narrow where the blades connect.
Rolex 7206 vomparison buckle 61 vs 67. Note how similar they look as far as the date stamp. But not the connector.
Close up
A key part of the conclusion Rolex 7206 bracelets and as we same never say never. This means it is possible to have later bracelets like a 7206 from 1965 that may not have 7206 stamp which could be explained by loss, damage etc but there is no denying the bracelet connectors sold bar vs pin bar on the buckle and the center blade narrow vs large. These are the keys to look for not the stamp alone.
You can also View harrison great summary on VRF which I used as my base to extrapolate the cut off dates.
Bill
Rolex 7206 date stamp 1961 "61" including 1963, 1964, 1965 and a few more.
Rolex 7206 buckle 61 date stamp top broader vs 7206 dated 67 which is more narrow where the blades connect.
Rolex 7206 vomparison buckle 61 vs 67. Note how similar they look as far as the date stamp. But not the connector.
Close up
Rolex 7206 bar vs pin connector. The top is from 1961 and the bottom 1967. Clear difference.
Rolex 7206 post 61 has which has the 7206 stamp.
Rolex 7206 stamp vs no 7206 stamp. Top is from 1961 bottom 1967.
Rolex Bracelet 7206
Rolex 7206 pin connector 1958, 1959 big logo, 1960 and 1961. Cant find a 1962.
Rolex 7206 pin connector and broad blade connection
I guess I am a bit weird when it comes to Rolex minutiae.
Some may find this as useful as an astray on a motorbike.
Thanks for reading.
Bill
Thanks for reading.
Bill
Superb work, Bill. Thanks to you, I start to better understand the world of bracelets. [nt]
No message body
Check your bracelets and let us know what you see. Every piece of info helps. [nt]
No message body
It is always fun to discover a little here and a little there and then the puzzle comes together. [nt]
No message body
Wow thanks Bill!
I never knew there was so much detail in the bracelets and age/models. Excellent pointers for a layman! Julian
What a seminal write-up !.. Have read & re-read it, to fully understand.. Have bookmarked it also.. Thx kindly & Cheers, hs [nt]
No message body
From Xeramic: follow-up to Harrison's and Bill's post
Because Bill (BTW, I like your superb reviews) has begun to dig deeper I've checked a few of my 7206 too  . For sure there is an evolution from the pin (dumbell shape) to the bar (straight shape) buckle connector of the blade, and a change from the large to the narrow notch - but not a the same time. Here's what my parts (parts only, my complete bracelets are deposited outwards, I will check them next week) show: pin connector, large notch 3/60 3/60 4/60 1/61 1/61 bar connector, large notch 1/62 1/62 1/62 2/62 1/63 bar connector, narrow notch 3/63 3/63 3/65 So the change of the buckle connector from pin to bar type came obviously first, the notch adaption from wide to narrow followed, what results in three different combinations. If I consider also net pictures it seems that the connector changed somewhere in 3/61 or 4/61, the notch around 3/63 (found both types in this quarter). I will try to refine the change dates after checking my bracelets (but I'm sure others can help here already). Will keep also an eye on the cut off date of the reference stamp, but because there has not been one style change only it may not coincide with the technical adaptions. Best, Xeramic |
Great educative posts !
And great to see them side by side..
Thanks for such
a great educative post Bill ...
I happen to have a 62 7206 bracelet...
Here are the photo
Best,
Sam
Thanks for sharing your Rolex 7206 from 1962.
Now that you are holding a full Rolex 7206 bracelet stamped 62 with 80 End links please confirm the following.
We can see the bar connector between the blades is large as was established.
It appears that there is no stamp 720 on the bracelet. Please confirm.
Is there a pin or a solid bar at the buckle.
Thanks for your input.
Bill
We can see the bar connector between the blades is large as was established.
It appears that there is no stamp 720 on the bracelet. Please confirm.
Is there a pin or a solid bar at the buckle.
Thanks for your input.
Bill
You're right...
It happens that there's no stamp on my bracelet..
At the buckle it seems to be a solid bar not a pin
Hope it's useful for the research
Sam
Here I updated with the photo
At the buckle it seems to be a solid bar not a pin
Hope it's useful for the research
Sam
Here I updated with the photo
Just as...
What Xeramic from VRF described as you quoted above.
And glad to found the last piece of the puzzle
Best,
Sam
And glad to found the last piece of the puzzle
Best,
Sam
Update from Xeramic: More updated finding on the Rolex Bracelet 7206
As an update to Xeramic former post he has completed the list below a bit after screening his stuff (and added also some net findings with source):
pin connector, large notch
3/60
3/60
3/60
4/60
1/61
1/61
2/61
bar connector, large notch
1/62
1/62
1/62
2/62
4/62 cda.chronomania.net
4/62 http://www.chrono-shop.net/en/1359-rare-7206-rolex-tudor-1962-vintage-20mm-buckle-clasp-from-submariner-5512-5513-1680-1665-and-1675-6542-5508-1016.html
1/63
1/63
1/63 http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/message/1349172687
2/63 (only notch visible, last pic shows other bracelet)http://www.network54.com/Forum/207593/thread/1424690750/last-1424954133/View+All3/63
bar connector, narrow notch
2/63 eBay
2/63 (only notch visible) http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/message/1465380840/FS-+Rolex+5512+-62+Gilt+chapter+ring+excl+dot
2/63 (6636, only notch visible) http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/thread/1418772001/FS-+--------+Rolex+6636+Rivet+Stretch+bracelet+80+ends+---+Date+2.63+---+12+Links+-----
3/63
1/64
1/64 http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/thread/1431376407/FS-+1964+Rolex+7206+20mm+rivet+bracelet+with+58+ends+%26gt%3B%26gt%3B
2/64
2/64
3/65
1/66
2/66
1/67
2/67
4/67
2/69
He mentioned in the last post a 3/63 still with large notch, but this was a misreading (was 2/63).
Regarding the cut off date of the reference stamp: I've found in 1963 only one (1/63, the network sample mentioned above) within ten pieces (not all listed above), so that one has a changed bracelet side or stamped piece for sure. In contrary I've found in several 7206/6636 from 1964 only one without the stamp (4/64), so that's obviously a swap too and earlier information about starting with the reference stamp in 1964 (1/64) seems correct, and all other combinations are very likely swap results.
As an overview (based on my observations only, of course - the question marks show missing information or, in parentheses,possible transition not yet excluded):
Rolex 7206 buckle dates
I didn't mention transition possibilities for the reference stamp because my finding matches earlier information around. Anyway it is not 100 % safe that the start was in 1/64, and it may also exist transition quarters. Others may add their own findings.
Below I'd like to show that the initial topic, the 61 vs. the 67 readability, is only a problem with the 4/67.
Best,
Xeramic
pin connector, large notch
3/60
3/60
3/60
4/60
1/61
1/61
2/61
bar connector, large notch
1/62
1/62
1/62
2/62
4/62 cda.chronomania.net
4/62 http://www.chrono-shop.net/en/1359-rare-7206-rolex-tudor-1962-vintage-20mm-buckle-clasp-from-submariner-5512-5513-1680-1665-and-1675-6542-5508-1016.html
1/63
1/63
1/63 http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/message/1349172687
2/63 (only notch visible, last pic shows other bracelet)http://www.network54.com/Forum/207593/thread/1424690750/last-1424954133/View+All3/63
bar connector, narrow notch
2/63 eBay
2/63 (only notch visible) http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/message/1465380840/FS-+Rolex+5512+-62+Gilt+chapter+ring+excl+dot
2/63 (6636, only notch visible) http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/thread/1418772001/FS-+--------+Rolex+6636+Rivet+Stretch+bracelet+80+ends+---+Date+2.63+---+12+Links+-----
3/63
1/64
1/64 http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/thread/1431376407/FS-+1964+Rolex+7206+20mm+rivet+bracelet+with+58+ends+%26gt%3B%26gt%3B
2/64
2/64
3/65
1/66
2/66
1/67
2/67
4/67
2/69
He mentioned in the last post a 3/63 still with large notch, but this was a misreading (was 2/63).
Regarding the cut off date of the reference stamp: I've found in 1963 only one (1/63, the network sample mentioned above) within ten pieces (not all listed above), so that one has a changed bracelet side or stamped piece for sure. In contrary I've found in several 7206/6636 from 1964 only one without the stamp (4/64), so that's obviously a swap too and earlier information about starting with the reference stamp in 1964 (1/64) seems correct, and all other combinations are very likely swap results.
As an overview (based on my observations only, of course - the question marks show missing information or, in parentheses,possible transition not yet excluded):
Rolex 7206 buckle dates
I didn't mention transition possibilities for the reference stamp because my finding matches earlier information around. Anyway it is not 100 % safe that the start was in 1/64, and it may also exist transition quarters. Others may add their own findings.
Below I'd like to show that the initial topic, the 61 vs. the 67 readability, is only a problem with the 4/67.
Best,
Xeramic
PS - This post originated on VRF and was posted here with permission from Xeramic.
Rolex 7206 dates stamp 61 vs 67 the only issue 4/67 hard to read.
Rolex 7206 dates stamp 61 vs 67 the only issue 4/67 hard to read.
Many thanks, Bill - here's another update:
Harrison from VRF pointed me to the idea that there have been no 3/61 and 4/61 editions. Because he didn't ever see these two date codes (neither did I in real nor during my search for several hours - but there's in general not a lot of detailed footage around), so it's likely that the bracelet producer adapted the manufacturing line without an output during this two quarters. This clears the question marks in my former table, I've updated it below - and I would say it's valuable until someone announces a 3/61 or 4/61 (or other discrepancies):
Greetings to all,
Xeramic
Thank you for the update and welcome to the forum. We hope to hear more from you in the future. HAGWE. [nt]
No message body
