1675 Gmt - What do you think?

[PoderEsBueno]

Hey guys,

I have been reading alot of the topics and getting as many info as i can about 1675 gmt for sometime now, and i have come across this one with the serial number starting 33xxx89, year 1971. I haven't observed the watch live since it is in another city but i have examined all the photos that i have and the dealer mentioned only replacing the glass with an original piece. I would appreciate any comments and suggestions. I am really excited about it, and hope to have it by next week.

Thanks

[iclick]

The case looks relatively undisturbed and superb to me. The bezel has a nicely faded fat-font insert, probably the original, and looks beautiful. The dial and hands may be service replacements, as I would expect that vintage to have an MK1 dial, and these look relatively new. That's not a deal breaker but may devalue the watch somewhat, as collectors like to see original dials and hands. The band is a 93150 flip-lock that is a replacement, but that isn't a big problem either, IMO.

To my eye it looks to me like a very nice example of a 1675. What are they asking for it?

[Beaumont Miller II]

Dial appears to be a nice example of a mk2 matte dial and period correct for the serial number. Hands may have been replaced at a prior service.

[buenosdias]

Dial/Hands:
MK2 - OK. Patina on hands seems to be a bit lighter as the dial. Can not see the condition from the pics...

Braclet:
Mounted is a 93150 for Subs. Should be a folded 7836 with 280 endlinks. But in my opinion a 93150 is OK for use as a daily wearer.

Insert:
nice faded FF-Insert.

Movement and caseback:
?


Better pics would be very helpfull!

[Vincent65]

the hands look newer to me

[joe100]

That bezel insert will comfort me in my dreams tonight. So beautiful.

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by iclick

The case looks relatively undisturbed and superb to me. The bezel has a nicely faded fat-font insert, probably the original, and looks beautiful. The dial and hands may be service replacements, as I would expect that vintage to have an MK1 dial, and these look relatively new. That's not a deal breaker but may devalue the watch somewhat, as collectors like to see original dials and hands. The band is a 93150 flip-lock that is a replacement, but that isn't a big problem either, IMO.

To my eye it looks to me like a very nice example of a 1675. What are they asking for it?

Thanks for the comments. I was thinking the same about the bezel, it is nicely faded but just one thing i had in mind was if it faded all naturally? I guess it is not possible to figure that out from the photos. Agree with the hands and the dial, speacialy hands look much lighter.

They are asking 5500$, hopefully i'll get a couple hundred discount after a good bargain.

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Dial appears to be a nice example of a mk2 matte dial and period correct for the serial number. Hands may have been replaced at a prior service.

Yes hands maybe replaced as they look whiter Is there a posibility replaced hands being not original?

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by buenosdias

Dial/Hands:
MK2 - OK. Patina on hands seems to be a bit lighter as the dial. Can not see the condition from the pics...

Braclet:
Mounted is a 93150 for Subs. Should be a folded 7836 with 280 endlinks. But in my opinion a 93150 is OK for use as a daily wearer.

Insert:
nice faded FF-Insert.

Movement and caseback:
?


Better pics would be very helpfull!

I guess i have to travel to the shop to get some better pics.. These photos were taken and sent by the dealer. I didn't recieve any movement shots. I was thinking to bring some photos of 33XXmil. starting serial number movement examples to the store and make a comparison with the actual movement. Do you have any recommendations what to look for in the movement?

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

the hands look newer to me

Yes Vincent, which discourages me and gets me thinking i should wait more for a better example.

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by joe100

That bezel insert will comfort me in my dreams tonight. So beautiful.

First i was thinking that i have seen some better, more vibrant examples of fading here on the forum. Later on i started to liked this one as it looks equal and smooth to the eye.

[lhanddds]

Nice dial, nice case, nice insert, you could wait but you might pay more. This is a nice one. Good luck

[Beaumont Miller II]

Lighter hands are likely authentic/original Rolex but not original to the watch. May have been replaced at a service.

[NukeMan]

I think it is a very nice looking specimen at a reasonable/good price. Never mind the hands. Do you know if they still glow (i.e. Lumimova)? Something to use when negotiating.

[CrownMe]

beautiful GMT. everything looks correct. Great Fat font insert, nice dial, looks like newer hands but not so much of a difference that it would bother me. Plus you can add hands that match later down the road. $5500 is a fair price but i think you should atleast be able to get a few hundred off. Goodluck

[iclick]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Dial appears to be a nice example of a mk2 matte dial and period correct for the serial number. Hands may have been replaced at a prior service.

Ok. I thought the MK1 extended into around 1972. Do you (or anyone) know about when the MK1 and MK2 period began and ended? My 2.32m-serial (1969) has an MK1. I've been trying to get a grip on this for some time and it's still muddy despite reading pertinent threads here.

[iclick]

Originally Posted by PoderEsBueno

Thanks for the comments. I was thinking the same about the bezel, it is nicely faded but just one thing i had in mind was if it faded all naturally? I guess it is not possible to figure that out from the photos. Agree with the hands and the dial, speacialy hands look much lighter.

I've heard little about artificial fading, nothing that would tell me there was an effective way to do it other than the element of time. Yours looks about as good as it gets, IMO. Hands have probably been replaced, but most here think the dial is original.

They are asking 5500$, hopefully i'll get a couple hundred discount after a good bargain.

That's about where I think it should be. I would pounce upon it, as I don't think you'll find a nicer one, and it should only increase in value for years to come. I've had mine for 43 years and I'll bet you won't regret it.

[springer]

Originally Posted by PoderEsBueno

Yes Vincent, which discourages me and gets me thinking i should wait more for a better example.

Hands have been replaced in most watches from the 1960s since tritium is a wear item. Many watches have had the original hands repaired/relumed etc or just replaced and relumed to match the dial. I wouldn't worry at all about the hands.

Mark I dials ended around the 31XXXXX serial numbers - at least this is the latest that I have observed. I've also seen the Mark IIs as early as 29XXXXX. The serial number here places in closer to 1973 than 1971. I'd be surprised if the case back is stamped with the year/quarter since case back stampings ended in 1972. The dial appears correct for the watch which, as others posted, is a Mark II. Make sure to get some better pics with the lugs, if you are a "lug" guy. They don't appear very even but it could just be the photos.

[NukeMan]

Originally Posted by iclick

I've heard little about artificial fading, nothing that would tell me there was an effective way to do it other than the element of time. Yours looks about as good as it gets, IMO.

There's been a bit worrying thread on insert bleaching just the last few days. Seems as if it can be achieved fairly easily.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=345339

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by lhanddds

Nice dial, nice case, nice insert, you could wait but you might pay more. This is a nice one. Good luck

Thank you

I want to see it on my wrist as soon as possible

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

Lighter hands are likely authentic/original Rolex but not original to the watch. May have been replaced at a service.

I guess it is not very big of a deal then as long as they are original rolex, and as Springer mentioned it is pretty common to see hands being replaced for the most watchs after 1960s.

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by NukeMan

I think it is a very nice looking specimen at a reasonable/good price. Never mind the hands. Do you know if they still glow (i.e. Lumimova)? Something to use when negotiating.

I don't know if the lumes are still working, that is a good one to check Thank you..

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by CrownMe

beautiful GMT. everything looks correct. Great Fat font insert, nice dial, looks like newer hands but not so much of a difference that it would bother me. Plus you can add hands that match later down the road. $5500 is a fair price but i think you should atleast be able to get a few hundred off. Goodluck

Thank you

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by iclick

Ok. I thought the MK1 extended into around 1972. Do you (or anyone) know about when the MK1 and MK2 period began and ended? My 2.32m-serial (1969) has an MK1. I've been trying to get a grip on this for some time and it's still muddy despite reading pertinent threads here.

Here tells some information about the case serial numbers and dials. MK1 Matte dials starting with the case serial numbers around 1.6 mil until about Mid 2 mil. MK2 Matte dials starting with the case serial numbers around 2.5 mil to about 3.5 mil. But the year range isn't mentioned clearly.
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=74976

2 examples of the year 1972 MK2 with the serial number starting 3,2mil - 3,3mil.
http://www.hqmilton.com/watches/1972...mt-master_1675
http://www.hqmilton.com/watches/1972...cing_strip_box

3 examples of years 1971 MK1 with the case serial number starting 2,9mil.
http://www.hqmilton.com/watches/1971...box_and_papers
http://www.hqmilton.com/watches/1971...npolished_case
http://www.hqmilton.com/watches/1971...mt_1675_mark_1

I don't know what these 2 are, one with 1970 2,7mil. case serial and other 1972 with 3,4mil. case serial;
http://www.hqmilton.com/watches/rolex_gmt_167510
http://www.hqmilton.com/watches/1972_rolex_gmt_1675

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by iclick

I've heard little about artificial fading, nothing that would tell me there was an effective way to do it other than the element of time. Yours looks about as good as it gets, IMO. Hands have probably been replaced, but most here think the dial is original.

Originally Posted by iclick

That's about where I think it should be. I would pounce upon it, as I don't think you'll find a nicer one, and it should only increase in value for years to come. I've had mine for 43 years and I'll bet you won't regret it.

Long time you had it, do you wear it regularly?

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by springer

Hands have been replaced in most watches from the 1960s since tritium is a wear item. Many watches have had the original hands repaired/relumed etc or just replaced and relumed to match the dial. I wouldn't worry at all about the hands.

Mm good to hear that..

Originally Posted by springer

Mark I dials ended around the 31XXXXX serial numbers - at least this is the latest that I have observed. I've also seen the Mark IIs as early as 29XXXXX. The serial number here places in closer to 1973 than 1971. I'd be surprised if the case back is stamped with the year/quarter since case back stampings ended in 1972. The dial appears correct for the watch which, as others posted, is a Mark II. Make sure to get some better pics with the lugs, if you are a "lug" guy. They don't appear very even but it could just be the photos.

Exactly i was thinking the same thing, the examples i have seen with the case serial 3,2mil. - 3,3mil. are generally 1972. I have no idea about the case stamping but i will make sure to check it. What should i look exactly in the case stamping?

Now that you mentioned i have noticed two lugs not being similar to each other. Why is that happen? Thanks.

[PoderEsBueno]

Originally Posted by NukeMan

There's been a bit worrying thread on insert bleaching just the last few days. Seems as if it can be achieved fairly easily.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=345339

Yes i have been following that topic That's when i started to question if mine had been bleached or not. It seems like the shiny layer on top of the paint wears off when it is faded unnatural way but it is not possible to understand through looking at the photos if mine has been processed.

Thanks..

[springer]

Originally Posted by PoderEsBueno

Mm good to hear that..



Exactly i was thinking the same thing, the examples i have seen with the case serial 3,2mil. - 3,3mil. are generally 1972. I have no idea about the case stamping but i will make sure to check it. What should i look exactly in the case stamping?

Now that you mentioned i have noticed two lugs not being similar to each other. Why is that happen? Thanks.

The case back stamping would be visible, if it is stamped, after removing the case back. You appear to have found a nice, vintage GMT and priced accordingly. As far as the lugs go, 45-year-old watches are no longer new, and during service, case polishing is a normal part of the service. I have seen unpolished watches where all four lugs are not the same size, but fairly close. Enjoy your find.

[iclick]

Originally Posted by iclick

I've had mine for 43 years....

It has been my daily wearer most of the time I've owned it. Of the watches that come and go this one will stay, as it was my first Rolex and the only one I ever bought new. FWIW, it cost $140 in 1971, purchased from the U.S. Navy Exchange in Hong Kong. Quite a bargain, and we've had lots of interesting experiences together in that time. It is my old friend and when it is out for service I feel like a part of me is missing.

[iclick]

Originally Posted by NukeMan

There's been a bit worrying thread on insert bleaching just the last few days. Seems as if it can be achieved fairly easily.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=345339

I saw that one but didn't see anything that looked like a good substitute for decades of exposure to the elements. I think direct exposure to sunlight is as good a method as there is. As evidence, see the two inserts on my GMT below. Note that the color saturation in the photo is a bit greater than actual.

The one on the left is the original ring and fat-font insert that were lost in about 1980 while working in my yard. At that time I almost never removed the watch and the ring apparently popped off when it struck something. It was faded even at that time but exposure to the sun faded it even more until I found it a few years later. Since that time it has been stored inside, out of exposure to the sun and has not been on the watch since except for this photo.

The bezel ring and insert on the right are Rolex replacements fitted in about 1980, and have been on the watch ever since. Notice that the original insert is faded quite a bit more even though it was actually on the watch <1/3 of the time. I was told by a watchmaker at the time that the newer (circa 1980) inserts did not fade as much as the older ones.