1675 GMT v 16710 GMT which is more collectable

[redfred]

It would be a 1675 for me.

[roh123]

Originally Posted by redfred

It would be a 1675 for me.

Gorgeous!

[RC2]

1675


Member of Nylon Nation
Member of Red Sox Nation

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trog]

No doubt about it....1675:

[roh123]

Not really a question but fun to share.

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by roh123

Not really a question but fun to share.

[wappinghigh]

Originally Posted by HDMW

Hello Forum :
I've just jointed.
I have a Rolex GMT Master 1675. I bought it when I was flying in Northern Canada in '75 and have worn it ever since. Indeed I became so accustomed to it, I even wore it on site when I was building a house here in France. I only discovered these watches are quite valuable, by accident. Now I'm trying to understand what I have.

I looked at some watches for sale to get an idea of value and discovered my watch is a 'long-E' type. Why would a dealer bother to mention the length of the E in the name Rolex?

The watch was serviced by Rolex in Paris a month ago and it has a new bracelet. (The old one had become a bit stretched).

What is considered a 'good example' of a 1675

I can't help asking a rank amateur question: Why would buy a 45 year old watch when he could get a new one for less money and one which looks identical?

Regards : Hubert Wagner

Because it's simply impossible to get a "new" one from Rolex at MRSP...

[wappinghigh]

I am shotting for a 16700 or 16710 rather than the 4 digit... mainly because I have lost trust in most sellers of the older Rollers... The 4 digit is clearer more likely to have been bastardised either by Rolex or others. The 5 digits are also easier to date IMO with more accurate serials... and same with the bracelets. Just my view

[Dave4D]

Originally Posted by Swearengen

They both wear slightly differently. 1675 has a more "vintage" feel. Tudor included for reference.

Thank you for this picture.

I am looking to buy a GMT Master and have been hesitating forever between 1675, 16710..

For some reason, the square crown guards on the 1675 slim case have been very appealing to me. But on your picture the GMT Master II also have comparable crown guards (grown being sligthly larger).

Most of the examples of 16710 I saw have almost non existant crown guards.

[Anthony7929]

16710 is my preferred watch. I enjoy the modern features of the watch, but the look and size of the 1675.

[Alex6340]

Originally Posted by Dave4D

Thank you for this picture.



I am looking to buy a GMT Master and have been hesitating forever between 1675, 16710..



For some reason, the square crown guards on the 1675 slim case have been very appealing to me. But on your picture the GMT Master II also have comparable crown guards (grown being sligthly larger).



Most of the examples of 16710 I saw have almost non existant crown guards.

That’s why you have to hunt until you find a nice one with crown guards.







Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[charlitos]

1675, but 16710 is not bad.






Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

[bazin]

*****

1978 GMT Master 1675; full original parts; 1st owner; cpl. set incl. invoice of $ 515,-.

[gejay99]

Holy crap that watch is a beauty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk