Old Rolex Oyster Perpetual Datejust

WatchSpotted

Every thread about old Rolex Oyster Perpetual Datejusts seems to end in the same two dogmas: “unpolished, tritium, no service parts” versus “send it to RSC and let them modernize it.” Neither camp ever posts hard data. If the Datejust is supposed to be the ultimate everyday Oyster, why don’t we actually treat it like one and measure what matters?

Here’s what I’m looking to test and discuss with people who actually wear and service these, not just repeat talking points:

Water resistance reality check: On a properly serviced 1601/1603/16014/16030, who has credible 10 bar/100 m pressure-test numbers, and how long do those results hold? Does replacing the crown tube and crystal gasket reliably get you there, or do decades of case wear make that a fantasy? Post actual pressure logs, not “my watchmaker says.”
Cost-of-ownership over 10 years: For 15xx vs 3035 vs 3135 Datejusts, what’s your true-invoiced spend including reversing wheels, barrel arbor wear, crown/tube, mainspring, and bracelet rehab? I suspect the “vintage Datejust is the cheap Rolex” narrative ignores real maintenance costs.
Crown wear vs non-quickset: The internet says non-quickset 1601s are a pain if you rotate watches. But does more date-setting actually chew through crown threads and tubes faster than a 3035/3135 that gets less crown action? Anyone with measurable thread wear or replacement frequency data?
Does your “Datejust” still jump just at midnight? The name came from the instantaneous date jump. Has anyone done a frame-by-frame video to quantify jump latency on 1570/3035/3135 after fresh service? If the jumper spring is weak or mis-lubed, does it creep? Let’s stop pretending “it’s fine” without measuring it.
Bracelet “stretch” quantified: On 6251H/62510H Jubilees and 78360 Oysters, what’s the pin/bushing replacement success rate, and how many millimeters of sag did you recover? Stretch is often wear plus geometry. Who’s logged before/after droop angles or pin diameter deviations?
Acrylic-to-sapphire conversions on 160xx: Everyone screams sacrilege, but has anyone actually measured case deformation risk, cyclops magnification changes, pressure results, or shock survivability differences after a 162xx bezel/sapphire swap? Data, not dogma.
Service parts stigma: Are we mispricing documented Rolex service dials/hands on Datejusts? Rolex always intended these to be maintainable daily watches. If a luminova service set with perfect plots keeps the watch legible and safe, why is it treated as inferior to flaking tritium that compromises function? Should we define a “Rolex-authentic service build” category with its own premium/discount curve?

Proposals if people are willing to contribute:

A community Datejust benchmark sheet by reference (1601/3, 16014/16030, 16220/16234): amplitude in 6 positions, rate stability, WR test results, date-jump latency, crown torque feel before/after tube replacement, and cost-of-service line items. Crowd-sourced, anonymized invoices encouraged.
A rethink of grading: separate originality score from functional score. A 1601 that genuinely passes 10 bar, jumps date instantaneously, and runs within COSC after a sympathetic service should not be valued purely by “never polished, original tritium” checkboxes.

If we keep treating old Datejusts as fragile museum pieces or as blank canvases for RSC homogenization, we miss the point of the model. Either it’s still an Oyster you can trust, or it isn’t. Let’s stop guessing and start measuring. Who’s in, and who has numbers to prove me wrong?

ToolwatchTim

+1 on moving this from dogma to data. A few practical datapoints and protocols that have worked well:

Water resistance: The limiter on 16xx is almost always tube seat pitting and case‑back thread wear. With a fresh OEM crown/tube, new crystal gasket and back gasket, many 1601/16014/16030 cases will dry‑test to 10 bar on a Proofmaster; wet tests are safer capped at 6 bar. Expect margin to decay as the crown O‑rings set-annual checks are sensible. If there’s visible corrosion at the tube seat, plan on 3-5 bar. 162xx sapphire cases much more consistently hold 10 bar after service.
10‑year costs (independent, parts included, two services):
• 15xx: 2.0-3.5k USD. Drivers: balance work, barrel arbor/bushing, calendar parts sourcing.
• 3035: 1.8-3.0k USD. Drivers: calendar driving wheel/jumper wear, reversing wheels.
• 3135: 1.8-2.8k USD. Drivers: reversing wheels, barrel, occasional calendar yoke.
Add 300-600 for crown/tube cycles and 300-800 for bracelet rehab if needed.
Crown wear vs quickset: Thread erosion correlates with contaminated threads and over‑torque, not with how many minutes you spend advancing the date. In both cases you unscrew/screw once per session. Most tubes are replaced for hardened seals or corrosion, not stripped threads.
Date jump latency: Define target as instantaneous within a ±3 min window around midnight with no creep. Easy to quantify at 240 fps: look for a single‑frame transition. Creep = weak/misadjusted jumper or fouled teeth.
Bracelet “stretch”: Log droop by hanging the watch clasped and measuring link‑end distance/angle. Jubilee bushing jobs commonly recover 8-12 mm of hang if link walls aren’t ovalized; Oyster solid‑link 78360 recovers ₃-5 mm with new pins/sleeves.
Acrylic→sapphire on 160xx: Mixed results. Without the correct crystal seat geometry of 162xx, most conversions test 3-6 bar and magnification often drops below Rolex’s ₂.5×. Acrylic is more shock‑tolerant; sapphire adds brittleness and rarely improves WR on these cases.

Happy to contribute to a shared benchmark. Suggested fields: reference, case condition (noted pitting yes/no), gaskets replaced, WR dry/wet with date, amplitude/rates in 6 pos., date‑jump window and frame count, crown torque (open/close), and full invoice line items. Separate “Originality” and “Function” grades makes sense-and would finally value a properly sorted Datejust for what it does, not just what it used to be.