Please help me with a 1675 GMT Master

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by springer

I can't answer your last question for you. Enjoy your watch!

and you yours!

[trackpad]

Well. To revive an old and interesting thread that ended rather abruptly – I thought I would post my question here for the benefit of future readers rather than create a new thread.

My question is pretty simple – does anyone know if a '78 1675 could have been sold at the time on a 7836 with 258EL's? As much as I like the 7836, I also really like keeping it real, period wise.

Thanks in advance!

[roh123]

Originally Posted by trackpad

Well. To revive an old and interesting thread that ended rather abruptly – I thought I would post my question here for the benefit of future readers rather than create a new thread.

My question is pretty simple – does anyone know if a '78 1675 could have been sold at the time on a 7836 with 258EL's? As much as I like the 7836, I also really like keeping it real, period wise.

Thanks in advance!

Sure it could. Folded bracelets were available and I believe a watch from -78 could have both folded or solid oyster. If in the US the C-I rivet could also be possible even in 1978.

Any x58 end is common on a plastic GMT depending on bracelet. 258 on a 7836 is perfectly fine.

[lee fowler]

Would also depend in what part of the world the watch originated from.

[trackpad]

Thanks guys.

Not to cast any doubt whatsoever on your assertion, just wondering how we know this. Do we know what year Rolex stopped production of the 7836...which, if history is any guide, might not be the same year they stopped shipping watches with it. Catalogs? Or is it just common knowledge?

As a casual observer of vintage Rolex, I had the impression the vaunted folded link was not found on much of anything after the second half of the 1970's. Would be very cool if the 7836/258 on my '69 1016 could do double-duty on a later model 1675 without issue.

[roh123]

Originally Posted by trackpad

Thanks guys.

Not to cast any doubt whatsoever on your assertion, just wondering how we know this. Do we know what year Rolex stopped production of the 7836...which, if history is any guide, might not be the same year they stopped shipping watches with it. Catalogs? Or is it just common knowledge?

As a casual observer of vintage Rolex, I had the impression the vaunted folded link was not found on much of anything after the second half of the 1970's. Would be very cool if the 7836/258 on my '69 1016 could do double-duty on a later model 1675 without issue.

Normally clasps are marked with a time stamp. If no stamp we also know the year that way.

Basically you could have any watch on any bracelet back in the days. There's really nothing right or wrong.

[lee fowler]

UK brochure from 1968 shows a 6636 bracelet on a 1015 which was the UK model ref for a 1675!

[trackpad]

Interesting, Lee. Thanks again, all. And I buy what you're saying. But! :-) ...the folded link 7836 did go out of production at some point. I'd be curious to know roughly when. Was the 78360 introduced as it's replacement?

[springer]

Originally Posted by trackpad

Interesting, Lee. Thanks again, all. And I buy what you're saying. But! :-) ...the folded link 7836 did go out of production at some point. I'd be curious to know roughly when. Was the 78360 introduced as it's replacement?

Correct. The 78360 replaced the 7836 but both the 7836 and 78360 were available together for a couple years once the 7836 was introduced.

[trackpad]

Originally Posted by springer

Correct. The 78360 replaced the 7836 but both the 7836 and 78360 were available together for a couple years once the 7836[0] was introduced.

Which begs the question...when was the 78360 introduced? :-)

I've had look around for the answer but didn't find anything more conclusive than "late 70's to early 80's". And yet this seems entirely knowable. Even if we don't know in which region or on what model it first appeared, the year really must be discernable. Would be keen to know, for knowings sake.

[springer]

Originally Posted by trackpad

Which begs the question...when was the 78360 introduced? :-)

I've had look around for the answer but didn't find anything more conclusive than "late 70's to early 80's". And yet this seems entirely knowable. Even if we don't know in which region or on what model it first appeared, the year really must be discernable. Would be keen to know, for knowings sake.

Well, for knowings sake...I know they were available during 1978 which is a VC clasp code. Possibly earlier. I know that in the USA, the C&I rivet bracelet was still being used during 1977, so it would only be a guess when exactly it first appeared. Maybe you could write a letter to Rolex in Geneva and find out - they would be the best source for you.

[trackpad]

Very helpful. Thanks.

Would it be fair to say that by the close of the 1970's you could find a GMT from a Rolex AD with a 7836, a 78360, or (in the US) a C&I rivet...

[lee fowler]

I will look through some brochures I have that cover 1970 to 1978 later.

[roh123]

Originally Posted by trackpad

Very helpful. Thanks.

Would it be fair to say that by the close of the 1970's you could find a GMT from a Rolex AD with a 7836, a 78360, or (in the US) a C&I rivet...

Yes. As previously mentioned you could find all types in 1978. There is no cut off date when solid links appeared and folded dissapeared. Looking at catalogues you will also see all different types depending on market etc. Pick your poison depending on what you prefer. Nothing will be considered more correct compared to the other.

[Tom1675]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

You can choose to believe what you like, and so can I. There are hundreds of cases of so-called 'anomalies' straight from the factory, and that does not make them 'mis-matched' because it doesn't follow some little table that everyone swears by. 'Possible, not probable' is the key phrase you used here. How do you know how my watch left the factory? You don't, unless you made it. Of course I don't know either, but what I do know is what I see, and that is that none of the links showed any evidence whatsoever that they had been opened and re-closed again to change a clasp or links. Period. And I'm not alone in that view. And if you read my previous post again, you might glean that I said the watch had had very little wear in its long life, which hardly supports the distantly remote supposition - made by those who've never even seen it - that the bracelet or clasp had to have been worn out and changed, does it? This thing has never been serviced or polished, as far as we can tell. As with countless other well-documented cases of 'incorrect' parts being used at the time of production in the factory, so this could also have been the case with the bracelet on my 1680. Apart from the stamped numbers, the folded links look the same to me as the 9315 links, so they may well have just used what was available at that particular moment in time, completely unaware that, 43 years in the distant future, it might be debated on some electronic posting board by 'experts,' thousands of miles away.

As for your statement as to 'any collector would want the correct bracelet and not one with mismatched parts' - well, for a start, I don't think this was initially raised as an issue anyway, and secondly, I bought this one, and I consider myself quite discerning, or am I stupid? Am I 'any collector'?

Guys, I have been looking and cant find a centralized thread which outlines the the anthropology of the Rolex bracelets and clasps by year. What I am looking for is much like various MKx generations of each reference's dials only for bracelets, endlinks and clasps... Does something like this exist? I have searched this forum and elsewhere and cant find it. Thanks!

[trackpad]

Originally Posted by Tom1675

Guys, I have been looking and cant find a centralized thread which outlines the the anthropology of the Rolex bracelets and clasps by year. What I am looking for is much like various MKx generations of each reference's dials only for bracelets, endlinks and clasps... Does something like this exist? I have searched this forum and elsewhere and cant find it. Thanks!

Should anything like this ever turn up, it would be great to centralize it together with some of the things I know Lee has posted over the years – all in a public Dropbox or Google Drive folder.

Perhaps this resource already exists. If not, and if you're sitting on a trove of scanned materials, PM me and I'll make sure they get hosted somewhere everyone can see them.

[roh123]

It really isn't as dials, bezels etc as bracelets were more various depending on customer, AD, market etc

Oysters:
Swiss rivets until late 60's
US rivets until late 70's
Folded bracelets from late 60's until late 70's and also even later as service part
Solid oyster from mid 70's

During this time you will see a big overlap. Same goes for jubilees where you have folded and solid versions all-over depending on market and year. There really isn't anything correct but you could say that the most modern type available is the most accepted version for every watch. That does not mean that other possible versions are wrong..

As for end links you will see 58 and 80 versions for GMT's and Explorers and 80 versions for Submariners. Still an overlap here as well as AD's sold whatever they had and whatever the customer wanted for their model. Two digit ends for Swiss rivets and 3xx/2xx ends for folded (3xx is fixed ends and 2xx are lose). For solid oysters the ends are named 5xx and on the cheap American C-I oyster the ends are unmarked and one size fits all.

[Vincent65]

As this thread has been revived, I thought I'd add some grist to the mill.

Here's another example of a very nice 1680, from a respected dealer most will recognise as an authority on the subject, who also happens to be the gent from whom I procured mine.

This is a 2.4mil 'M'-first' variant, and mine was just a matter of months later, at 2.6mil, and a very early MKIV.


This may not sit well with those who are hung up on what 'should be' - whatever that is...

PS The watch quickly sold to a [no doubt] discerning collector (is he included in the 'any collector' group, and does he give a .... I wonder?)

[Tom1675]

Originally Posted by roh123

It really isn't as dials, bezels etc as bracelets were more various depending on customer, AD, market etc

Oysters:
Swiss rivets until late 60's
US rivets until late 70's
Folded bracelets from late 60's until late 70's and also even later as service part
Solid oyster from mid 70's

During this time you will see a big overlap. Same goes for jubilees where you have folded and solid versions all-over depending on market and year. There really isn't anything correct but you could say that the most modern type available is the most accepted version for every watch. That does not mean that other possible versions are wrong..

As for end links you will see 58 and 80 versions for GMT's and Explorers and 80 versions for Submariners. Still an overlap here as well as AD's sold whatever they had and whatever the customer wanted for their model. Two digit ends for Swiss rivets and 3xx/2xx ends for folded (3xx is fixed ends and 2xx are lose). For solid oysters the ends are named 5xx and on the cheap American C-I oyster the ends are unmarked and one size fits all.

This is exactly what I had in mind as i know there is a lot of overlap and no real finite date to much with vintage but I was curious to when rivits were phased out among other things.

My rivit bracelet does not have a style reference number anywhere on it and its a 2.1m, IV68 stamped GMT (receipt says sold in 1/71). To be clear, the bracelet is not original but I was told is period correct, clasp is stamped 3 over 69.

[Nunez. Jacob]

love the gmt

[billydgates]

is that a service insert on the 1675? the dial looks like a LONG E

What year is this brochure?

[billydgates]

Originally Posted by lee fowler

UK brochure from 1968 shows a 6636 bracelet on a 1015 which was the UK model ref for a 1675!

is that a service insert on the 1675? the dial looks like a LONG E

What year is this brochure?
billydgates is online now Report Post