Opinions - 1972 GMT 1675 Long E

[Cutiger1]

Hello guys. I have the option to buy a 1972 long E 1675 for $9k. The watch appears to be in good condition. My concern is that the bezel insert appears too “clean” to be original to the watch. Seller has no paperwork; only the original box. I am attaching a few pictures. Tell me what you think and what else I should be looking for. This would be my first vintage piece.

[rootbeer7]

Better pictures!

[Andad]

Pix?

[Vincent65]

It might well be OK. But that's about all anyone can say, with those images.

[zapokee]

Looks like a replacement insert (thin font, vivid colors) and bracelet (solid D-link Jubilee, no stretch). The plots on the dial look creamy/faded, so may be original. As per others, close-up pics are needed for further judgment.

[Cutiger1]

Thanks Zapokee and others. I am going to try to get some better pics today. If the insert and bracelet are replacement, how much do you guys think that devalues the watch? $9k still good price or not?

[Cutiger1]

Here are a few better pics, I hope. Let me know what you guys think.

[charlitos]

Bad pic. But service hands, bracelet, insert. No for me.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by charlitos

Bad pic. But service hands, bracelet, insert. No for me.

It's not a watch for me either, but $9k isn't a bad price if the OP likes it.

[Tools]

If you are looking for a 40 year old watch to be "original", it may be an uphill climb.

The bracelet on this one is fake.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Tools

If you are looking for a 40 year old watch to be "original", it may be an uphill climb.

The bracelet on this one is fake.

I agree with Larry regarding the "fake" bracelet. Check on the stamped coronet on the inner clasp blade by the scroll work. Very non-Rolex looking coronet.

[1watch]

$9k is the first clue something’s not right here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RLX-lvr]

Yes, too Cheap.
Bracelet is fake as said earlier.
1972 is too late for that dial, and better look at the case and serial as well.

Move away from that watch.

[Cutiger1]

Thanks to all. I have definitely moved away from that watch. Still in the market though. So if you guys come across anything or have recommendations, please let me know.

[Cutiger1]

Hi guys. I wanted to get your opinions on this one. It’s a 1978.

[Tom1675]

As with the first watch you'll need to provide better pics. From 30k feet, the watch looks like there has been some moisture inside, the lume is rugged. Take your time and get great shots. Also, get the serial number don't tell us the year...

[Cutiger1]

Sorry about the photos. They’re much sharper on my phone, but when I upload to the forum the quality diminishes. Here’s another one that I am considering. 3.2M serial.

[Tom1675]

OP, what do you think? Does this dial match that serial #? Does the insert look correct?

[springer]

Originally Posted by Cutiger1

Sorry about the photos. They’re much sharper on my phone, but when I upload to the forum the quality diminishes. Here’s another one that I am considering. 3.2M serial.

The dial has been replaced with a Mark VI dial. It should have a Mark II dial if the serial number is 3.2 million.