1970's Rolex 1675 Verification

[mh17]

Here's another one for you guys to exercise your eyes
Dealer said its a 5 mil series, circa 1978.
Everything seems ok to my beginner's eyes (except the bracelet) but just want to double confirm with the experts here.
1. Is the dial correct for the serial and not refinished/relumed
2. Seller claimed that it is on the original riveted bracelet, but i dont see anything etched on the centre link plus the endlinks seem too loose

Thanks in advance for your expert opinions

[RC2]

What a matter with the band?

[buenosdias]

Hi,

my opinion:

Case: Strong and even. Polished but very fat late 70's case.
Dial: One of the correct late 70's dials. So period correct. Condition? Hard to state from these pics.
Hands: Corroded but OK. Would be no problem for me.
Insert: Looks like artificially faded service inlay

Bracelet: Not period correct. Looks like a 7206 with big logo clasp, refinished (maybe end 50's, early 60's, but I'm not a bracelet expert). But if this one is original, it's worth much more than a period correct 78360 Oyster
Lookin' forward for the bracelet-experts.
.
.
.

[mh17]

Thanks for the great analysis. This is from a shop so I suppose I could return the bracelet if found to be not genuine. So it seems like it's good to go

[swish77]

Is that the same insert in the first two photographs? Looks different (slightly faded vs. no fade), but it could just be the bad lighting. Either way, it's certainly a service insert. In the past, I wouldn't have even worried so much about the insert when buying a GMT, because you could get nice, correct ones for a decent price. Now, with prices pushing $1K for good ones that would be correct, the insert should be a major consideration. Good luck!

[Frosty]

My GMT 1675 was close in serial number range to this one. This is my thread which shows my watch and the large picture of the 1977/78 Tiffany Dial from the Mondani GMT Book. My bracelet does not have a number. However, it does fall in the serial range of when they first started putting serial numbers on bracelets.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=399747

[mh17]

Larry yours is a cool watch with a touching story. I can't wait to get my hands on one myself.

[omitohud]

Originally Posted by buenosdias

Hi,



my opinion:



Case: Strong and even. Polished but very fat late 70's case.

Dial: One of the correct late 70's dials. So period correct. Condition? Hard to state from these pics.

Hands: Corroded but OK. Would be no problem for me.

Insert: Looks like artificially faded service inlay



Bracelet: Not period correct. Looks like a 7206 with big logo clasp, refinished (maybe end 50's, early 60's, but I'm not a bracelet expert). But if this one is original, it's worth much more than a period correct 78360 Oyster

Lookin' forward for the bracelet-experts.

.

.

.

Very good assessments. 👍

I'm not an expert but that looks like big logo bracelet with original end links from early 60's. Worth big money.


I blame it on the autoconnect.

[southtexas]

Yep if that bracelet is legit, it's worth near to what the head only is worth. However, it would need to be closely examined/compared to known good examples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mh17]

Amazing. I'll try to get more pics of the bracelet later today

[mh17]

There's another dealer down the road selling another 1675 at a lower price. Here are some pics of it. It's a 3.3m serial which means it's a MK2? However dial seems to me a mk1 or 3:

[mh17]

Had to make a decision so I purchased this as it was way cheaper, though it's just a 78360 bracelet.

[Frosty]

Great find! I know you will enjoy it.

[mh17]

Thanks! I'm in love with the patina. However the dial isn't period correct, my 3.3m serial should have an mk2 instead of an mk4 (I'm guessing)