GMT naming

[mikeschmidt]

Why did the GMT change to the GMT II and why isn't the latest GMT version III or higher. Compared to original GMT II:

• New movement
• New case
• New bezel
• New indicies
• ...

[Rashid.bk]

It's a new movement, sure, but not a new way in which it functions. The GMTll of today is much different in function of the second time zone hand than before. The GMT hand is now independent, has a jump hour and the date isn't quick set. I prefer the operation of the GMTll compared to the GMT(1) of days past.
It isn't just about upgrades.

[Speedbird-1]

I have asked this very question a couple of times since the new movement, case and ceramic jobs were introduced.
Never did get a convincing reply.

To me, it makes no sense to name something, the 'MKII', then make major changes, and continue to call it,... the 'MKII'.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by mikeschmidt

Why did the GMT change to the GMT II and why isn't the latest GMT version III or higher. Compared to original GMT II:

• New movement
• New case
• New bezel
• New indicies
• ...

The GMT Master II was designated as such because it incorporated(s) a movement that, unlike the GMT Master, de-linked the 24 hour hand from the 12 hour hand, allowing it to be quick-set independently. This turned a watch that could display 2 times zones at once (GMT Master) into a watch that can display 3 time zones (GMT Master II).

The entire point of the original GMT Master was to display multiple time zones, so the added capability to display a 3rd was judged to warrant a new designator to signify this extra to it's central purpose.

Small and large differences/changes/upgrades in cases, bezels, crown guards, plots, movements (apart from the above defining, de-linked hand, 3rd time zone feature) never warranted a numerical designator change in either Master or Master IIs because that's what model reference number designations are for. If so, we'd be talking about the GMT Master XIII or XIV right now.

GMT Master and Master II production ran concurrently from '83 until '99 (when the GMT Master was discontinued), and during that period each version (linked and de-linked) went through it's own references changes; the 16750 to 16700, the 16760 to 16710 (until 2007) The later GMT Master IIs (116710, 126710) are just more evolutions of the version defined by it's independently-settable 24 hour hand.

[JP(Canada)]

GMT II name was introduced and meant the local hour (regular) hand was now adjustable independently of the minute hand.

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by JP(Canada)

GMT II name was introduced and meant the local hour (regular) hand was now adjustable independently of the minute hand.

^this.

The new movement isn’t changing how the watch functions, I think that’s why the name GMT 2 didn’t change.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts

I have asked this very question a couple of times since the new movement, case and ceramic jobs were introduced.
Never did get a convincing reply.

To me, it makes no sense to name something, the 'MKII', then make major changes, and continue to call it,... the 'MKII'.

Here's the short, factual answer: Because it's Rolex's multiple time zone display watch, and despite new movements, cases, and ceramics, etc the new references can still only display 3 times zones like all other GMT Master IIs. The "II" signifies a 3rd time zone, extra capability compared to the GMT Master. Makes no difference now since the GMT Master was discontinued, but for 16 years or so ('83 to '99) they were produced concurrently.

It's no different than having a Submariner and a Submariner Date, both of which have gone through many of the same type of changes/ugrades, except Rolex chose to spell out/incorporate the Sub Date's extra feature in it's official name rather than using a Roman numeric designator like it did on the GMT Master II.

[Speedbird-1]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Here's the short, factual answer: Because it's Rolex's multiple time zone display watch, and despite new movements, cases, and ceramics, etc the new references can still only display 3 times zones like all other GMT Master IIs. The "II" signifies a 3rd time zone, extra capability compared to the GMT Master. Makes no difference now since the GMT Master was discontinued, but for 16 years or so ('83 to '99) they were produced concurrently.

It's no different than having a Submariner and a Submariner Date, both of which have gone through many of the same type of changes/ugrades, except Rolex chose to spell out/incorporate the Sub Date's extra feature in it's official name rather than using a Roman numeric designator like it did on the GMT Master II.

Thank you for your explanation.

It could easily confuse a stupid person.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by CRM114

The GMT Master II was designated as such because it incorporated(s) a movement that, unlike the GMT Master, de-linked the 24 hour hand from the 12 hour hand, allowing it to be quick-set independently. This turned a watch that could display 2 times zones at once (GMT Master) into a watch that can display 3 time zones (GMT Master II).

The entire point of the original GMT Master was to display multiple time zones, so the added capability to display a 3rd was judged to warrant a new designator to signify this extra to it's central purpose.

Small and large differences/changes/upgrades in cases, bezels, crown guards, plots, movements (apart from the above defining, de-linked hand, 3rd time zone feature) never warranted a numerical designator change in either Master or Master IIs because that's what model reference number designations are for. If so, we'd be talking about the GMT Master XIII or XIV right now.

GMT Master and Master II production ran concurrently from '83 until '99 (when the GMT Master was discontinued), and during that period each version (linked and de-linked) went through it's own references changes; the 16750 to 16700, the 16760 to 16710 (until 2007) The later GMT Master IIs (116710, 126710) are just more evolutions of the version defined by it's independently-settable 24 hour hand.

[037]

Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts

I have asked this very question a couple of times since the new movement, case and ceramic jobs were introduced.
Never did get a convincing reply.

A true GMT III would require a 4-position crown and updated movement... say a caliber 3295 to denote the new function. Positions could be as follows:

0 - closed
1 - winding
2 - local 12-hour hand
3 - GMT 24-hour hand
4 - all hands

Since very few users need to change the reference time on-the-fly via the 24-hour hand (after all, that's what the rotating bezel is for), I personally don't see a GMT III model happening.

As CRM114 mentioned, visual appearance isn't what's factored when moving from an original to a II model. Consider the evolution of the Explorer II and vast changes it's seen through its nearly 50-year history. For the same reason above, I don't see an Explorer III happening without major changes to the movement functionality.

Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts

To me, it makes no sense to name something, the 'MKII', then make major changes, and continue to call it,... the 'MKII'.

Keep in mind that we give "MkI", "MkII", etc. monikers to dial and insert variations, not Rolex. Rolex is only responsible for actual model names and numbers.

[GreatScott]

Originally Posted by mikeschmidt

Why did the GMT change to the GMT II and why isn't the latest GMT version III or higher. Compared to original GMT II:

• New movement
• New case
• New bezel
• New indicies
• ...

How are the case and indices different from the other stainless models?

[ras47]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

It's a new movement, sure, but not a new way in which it functions. The GMTll of today is much different in function of the second time zone hand than before. The GMT hand is now independent, has a jump hour and the date isn't quick set. I prefer the operation of the GMTll compared to the GMT(1) of days past.
It isn't just about upgrades.

Me too. The II just works better for me. I don't need the quickset date feature because I keep the watch on a winder when I'm not wearing it. Seeing how the GMT II is very nearly identical to the older GMT, newer seems better as long as there are no features missing that you can't live without.

[mikeschmidt]

"How are the case and indices different from the other stainless models?"

Compared to the original GMT II, the lugs are thicker and the indicies are bigger. I couldn't find any reference as to the thickness of the new GMT for comparison.

[mikeschmidt]

Thanks for all the responses. It does make sense that there was a I and II as they were concurrently sold in the past.

[Tools]

Most of you guys don't know what you're talking about.


The GMT II was named "GMT II" because the GMT Master was still in production when it came out. For more than a decade you could buy either a GMT I or a GMT II, your choice, until the GMT (I) was discontinued.

Same for the Explorer II, there is an Explorer in production too.

[Speedbird-1]

[QUOTE
Keep in mind that we give "MkI", "MkII", etc. monikers to dial and insert variations, not Rolex. Rolex is only responsible for actual model names and numbers.[/QUOTE]

ROLEX called it the GMT MASTER II.
Thats what this part of the discussion was about.

[HogwldFLTR]

GMT III already exists; they called it the Sky Dweller!!! And of course Larry is correct; the 16700 and 16710 were introduced in the same year with totally different functions for the hands.

[037]

Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts

ROLEX called it the GMT MASTER II.
Thats what this part of the discussion was about.

Right, but they didn't call it a "MkII", just a "II". All the "mark" stuff came from collectors and Mondani books, not Rolex themselves. That was my point above.

Originally Posted by Tools

Most of you guys don't know what you're talking about.


The GMT II was named "GMT II" because the GMT Master was still in production when it came out. For more than a decade you could buy either a GMT I or a GMT II, your choice, until the GMT (I) was discontinued.

Same for the Explorer II, there is an Explorer in production too.

Explorers are differentiated by movements as well so it's not just because both were simultaneously available. Had the original GMT been discontinued and a new model released with a new function and updated movement, it still would have been called a GMT II. It would have been confusing otherwise.

The only places where Rolex did this and made a major mistake were in the Datejust II and Day-Date II. Obviously they decided these were poor choices both in design and name.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

And of course Larry is correct; the 16700 and 16710 were introduced in the same year with totally different functions for the hands.

The concurrent production began a few years earlier in 1983 with the introduction of the first GMT Master II, the 16760 "Fat Lady". The 16760 was also the first with a "Coke" bezel insert. It's production lasted 6 years, replaced by the 16710 in 1989 (until 2007).

By 1983 the GMT Master, of course, had already been in production for 30 years. The 6542 in '54 followed by the 1675 in '59, then in '79 by it's first 5-digit ref the 16750 which was still in production when the 16760 was released. The 16750 was replaced by the 16700 in 1988 (until '99).