1968 GMT Master 1675 Case Back

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by PVR

"Even if 2.8 million (which is 70/71 using the most accurate VRF case/caseback dating project below *), I'd suggest respectfully, it couldn't be original as casebacks had year and qtrs then and for another couple of years thereafter."

What are you saying? Case backs were no longer date stamped after 1972. Where does 2.8m come into this? The OP said the watch was 1.8m, so it would have to have a date code. I agree that a 1970, 71 and even 72 case backs should be date stamped.

This one is not date stamped so it is not original to this watch but it is a genuine 1675 Case back.

I think there is some confusion here. The caseback on this watch is from 1973/74 and is not and should not be date stamped, but THIS case back is not original to THIS watch.

No I'm saying the opposite - they were date stamped after 70/71 and the 2.8 mil came from your possible supposition :

''If the engraving is a 2.8 and not 1.8 then I think that it could be original to the case.'' end of your first paragraph!

Either way, we agree it is not original to watch :-)

[swish77]

Originally Posted by 1675-David

Why is this thread so long? Looks pretty cut and dried to me.

Because we love a good debate!

The case back is obviously replaced, but so what? Nice-looking GMT. I'm a stickler for originality, but it wouldn't really bother me, as long as it was authentic Rolex and factored into the price.

And if your OCD got the better of you, track down a '68-stamped case back. I'm guessing $1500-$2000.

[springer]

Originally Posted by TuRo

No I'm saying the opposite - they were date stamped after 70/71 and the 2.8 mil came from your possible supposition :

''If the engraving is a 2.8 and not 1.8 then I think that it could be original to the case.'' end of your first paragraph!

Either way, we agree it is not original to watch :-)

.

[XavierM]

Originally Posted by PVR

"

I think there is some confusion here. The caseback on this watch is from 1973/74 and is not and should not be date stamped, but THIS case back is not original to THIS watch.

I wouldn’t date this stamp specifically to this time period, it seems commonly seen in the 5mill range for example.

[PVR]

Originally Posted by XavierM

I wouldn’t date this stamp specifically to this time period, it seems commonly seen in the 5mill range for example.

The font on the 5m case backs is different.

[PVR]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Even if 2.8 million (which is 70/71 using the most accurate VRF case/caseback dating project below *), I'd suggest respectfully, it couldn't be original as casebacks had year and qtrs then and for another couple of years thereafter.
*http://vintagerolexforum.info/vrf/index3.html
#Apologies to David in Stockholm ;-)

Ok, now I understand what you were saying. You point focuses on whether or not a 2.8m serial is found on 1970,71,72 or later production. I have seen 2.8m serials on 1972 watches, so my point was that it was close enough that it could have been correct to have a no date case back.

Your position is that 2.8m serial is found on 70/71 production, so there is no way that a no date case back could be correct.

Here is a link to a 3.1m serial with the identical case back as the OP. It's not a 2.8m, but its very close, which is why I stated that if it was a 2.8m engraving it is possible it could be correct.

https://hqmilton.com/products/1972-r...r-1675-pepsi-3

Here are two more 2.9m dated to 1972, getting closer:

https://invertedsix.com/products/197...mt-master-1675

https://www.upperwatches.com/shop/ro...si-circa-1972/

I would tend to agree with you that a 2.8m serial with a non dated caseback would probably be a little bit outside of the range of acceptance. I will stand by my statement that the casebacks with these specific engravings are found immediately after the date stamped variants, and are seen on 1973-1974 GMT's.

Where you decide the range is for 1973-1974 I suppose is based on what charts you use to decipher date codes.

[XavierM]

Well, neither from 1973 nor from 1974, some samples that have IMHO the exact same caseback stamp)

https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/6z6h
https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/mvze
https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/q1m3
https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/4evn
https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/edot
https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/obck

[PVR]

Funny, you posted those links. I just bought a radial 1675 yesterday (5.0m) that also has the same caseback engraving. interesting..

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by springer

Case backs get replaced - especially one where the outer threads were severely stripped during case back removals, by dropping the case or damaged in other ways. It happens!

The value difference between an original or a service case back is not very significant. I would leave it alone.

^^^^ This

It's good, but as mentioned it is most likely a service caseback from the 70s, early 80s, before they ran out of 1675 no date stamped casebacks and went to what we commonly see in later service replacement, 16750 casebacks.

If in the 80s getting a RSC service it was determined it needed a new caseback, it got a new caseback. That there are not other service parts readily seen *might* indicate mid-late 70s service.