GMT Pricing: Modern vs. Vintage Confusion

[Mike1066]

Hello all:

I have in no way done a scientific study on this, just observed the sales forum for the past few months. But it appears to me that 16710s are consistently priced above 1675s. And, the gap seems to be growing.

This strikes me as odd b/c, for the other sports models that I look at, the vintage normally out prices the modern: 1665s are way more expensive than 16600s, 5512/3s are more than 14060s, 1655s are WAY more than 16570s and, until recently, I would say that 1680s were more than 16610s. At least, this is how I see it based on casual observation.

So, is there a reason why the 16710s seem to be priced above the 1675s? I would always think that vintage sorta had that "rarity" aspect that made it a little pricier. I have noticed a relative explosion (confused about this as well) in 16710 pricing in the past months, maybe that is the contributing factor?

Anyway, just an observation I had. If I'm wrong, feel free to flame away. I in no way monitor prices like many of the experts on this blog.

Hope everyone is doing well.

V/R

Mike

[Puffy]

same here

if you look around there are more 1675s for sale than 16710s so supply/demand dictates going rate...

[Dan Pierce]

There's also been a nostalgic increase in interest for the classic GMT II featuring the modern SEL's and multiple bezel options since
the introduction of the GMT IIc.
dP

[mike]

Mike, I think to some extent we gravitate to those models we "grew up" with.

Many are new to the brand and the 16710 etc... were the references they first saw. To some of them it's the "original, classic" GMT. As the reference is discontinued and a certain amount of hype surrounds this or that about the reference prices spike.

The 1675 is the "original" to some of us who go back that far and hence holds a special place.

To be honest I see spikes in 1675 pricing as well as some enter the vintage arena and look for a good place to start.

[landroverking]

Originally Posted by mike

mike, i think to some extent we gravitate to those models we "grew up" with.

Many are new to the brand and the 16710 etc... Were the references they first saw. To some of them it's the "original, classic" gmt. As the reference is discontinued and a certain amount of hype surrounds this or that about the reference prices spike.

The 1675 is the "original" to some of us who go back that far and hence holds a special place.

To be honest i see spikes in 1675 pricing as well as some enter the vintage arena and look for a good place to start.

x2

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

There's also been a nostalgic increase in interest for the classic GMT II featuring the modern SEL's and multiple bezel options since
the introduction of the GMT IIc.
dP

certainly also a factor Dan... especially so in the US where a complete set with all three inserts tend to fetch a premium as loose inserts seem to go from $100 and up..

a recently serviced GMT 16710 set here fetches about £3500 / $5800, six months ago you could find one for £2800...

[phelix_da_kat]

Originally Posted by mike

Mike, I think to some extent we gravitate to those models we "grew up" with.

Many are new to the brand and the 16710 etc... were the references they first saw. To some of them it's the "original, classic" GMT. As the reference is discontinued and a certain amount of hype surrounds this or that about the reference prices spike.

The 1675 is the "original" to some of us who go back that far and hence holds a special place.

To be honest I see spikes in 1675 pricing as well as some enter the vintage arena and look for a good place to start.

x3..
That's why I went for the Daytona Zenith over an in-house movement.

Also, I see that a lot of people are looking for birth year watches...

[vb2011]

As someone who just purchased a GMT II 16710 yesterday as my first Rolex, I think I can shed some light as to the reason:

1. I was not in the market for a vintage watch, just a good looking Rolex with GMT function.

2. GMT IIc does not attract me because of its all-black bezel, and large bold numerals on the bezel. This makes the watch look very "solemn" and "busy". I wasn't sure it will look good with t-shirt and jeans either. If I wanted an all-black watch, the Sub is better looking and will go well with casual wear.

3. I then settled on the GMT II 16710 because of its "classic" pepsi bezel which to me has a much nicer color combo that goes well with officewear or casual wear. The GMT II also has the 3185 movement which is as good as the 3186 in IIc. In addition, I still get the quick set hour, SEL bracelets, nice Superluminova, and lug-holes (for quick change of straps). So I don't feel any worse off buying the previous generation of GMT at all.

I suspect there are many people who think like me and thus drive up the demand for the GMT II. :)

[padi56]

Originally Posted by mike

mike, i think to some extent we gravitate to those models we "grew up" with.

Many are new to the brand and the 16710 etc... Were the references they first saw. To some of them it's the "original, classic" gmt. As the reference is discontinued and a certain amount of hype surrounds this or that about the reference prices spike.

The 1675 is the "original" to some of us who go back that far and hence holds a special place.

To be honest i see spikes in 1675 pricing as well as some enter the vintage arena and look for a good place to start.

x3