Should I buy a 16760?

[Otto76]

Got the urge to buy a non-ceramic GMT but I can't decide which one. I can't even decide between modern and vintage, there are aspects of both that I like.

Is a 16760 the answer? The coke bezel is my favourite, I prefer the newer movement, I love the thick case, and I like the idea that the reference makes it something a bit different.

Can anyone think of any drawbacks? They don't seem to be too expensive.

[Otto76]

I should add that the other model which has really caught my eye is the 16750.

No coke bezel and no jumping hour hand, but the plastic crystal and matte dial look SO sweet.

[Andad]

Yes, IMO buy the 16750 if you can find a nice one at the right price.

When I wear my GMT II, I miss the triplock.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost....05&postcount=1

[sakuraba]

Those are 2 very different references!

I prefer the flatter profile of the 16750 which IMO wears a lot lighter on the wrist.

The Fat Lady, however, is the sleeper in the GMT line IMHO.

[Otto76]

Thanks guys. Yes they are very different references, probably an indicator of my indecisiveness.

The 16760 is more like what I usually go for - I generally prefer a thicker, heavier feel on the wrist (smallest in my collection at the moment is a 16600). But I am tempted by the more vintage look of the 16750, for something different.

[mike]

The 16760 was the first to carry the II banner and as such was only made for a few years (circa 83-87ish). There have been those that have speculated the reason might have been the 3085 movement used in the reference.

What ever the reason the "fat-lady" is a favorite among GMT guys and you correctly point out was only issued with the RED/BLACK insert (though all with correct size will fit.

With the jump-hour feature it's a semi-quickset, but the ability to jump is a big plus while travling.

Yes thicker, the 16760 feels mode like a diver than a GMT.

The 16750 introduced the fast beat movement to the GMT line and, of course, used a true quick-set.

Vintage guys favor the reference as it affords perhaps the best of both worlds with it's acryllic crystal and 3175 movement.

Especially in matt dial form potental upside is nice.

Pics,

16750,



Fat-lady,



Comparison with it's thinner sibling. Note the crown guards as well,



Noteworthy though.

Both use tritium dials and if a measure of luminisity is a factor........

Service dials are an option at the value impact of the reference (though perhaps a bit less so with the latter 16760 dial-OYSTER PERPETUAL DATE- as opposed to the bit rare OYSTER PERPETUAL used early in the run) as gloss with WG surrounds was the only choice.

A matt 16750 service dial would be gloss with WGs as the reference transitioned to that dial mid 80s. Impact would be substantial on a matt example.

[Otto76]

Mike, those are beautiful watches and beautiful photos. Thank you very much for posting.

[SLS]

Otto, keep in mind that the dial for this reference has a tendency to "craze" or "spider web" so just keep that in mind when looking for one. Another nice option may be the 16700.
Scott

[E.Peynado]

I have both , a 16750 Matte dial 6.2 m and the 16760 "No DATE on dial" 8.4 m , the 16750 is a very comfortable on the wrist , I'm used with big watches so the 16760 feels ok too , you can get both at fair prices now and they are great watches to have , it's just a matter of personal preference ... ,good luck on your search !

[Submarino]

Why not going with a 16753 instead? If you like vintage, the brown dial will give that uniqueness and 70's look.