All Original?

[Knarfnyc]

I have a lead on a nice gmt 16750. Wanted the community’s opinion on originality of watch. Everything looks good but was wondering if the bezel is original to the watch or a later replacement? Does it matter?

I’ll be getting more detailed pictures later in the week, this is just what I have so far.

[GLADIATOR]

GENUINE in my opinion
- Model 16750 (1981-88)? - Based on 580 endlink
Nice Piece
Adam

[Old Expat Beast]

That polished-out damage on the 5 o'clock lug would stop me buying.

[GLADIATOR]

No one commented on the bezel - as you asked
Although it does not match mine - I have seen that pattern and it was genuine.
Yours looks very pristine, so I suspect replacement and possible aftermarket.

A

[cop414]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

That polished-out damage on the 5 o'clock lug would stop me buying.

Yes, that lug has been hit hard with the polishing wheel.

[037]

The bezel insert looks genuine but NOS from the mid '90s as a service replacement. The crystal also looks rather new since the poly should be scratched to match the condition of the case.

Between this and the insert being so new, it's likely been externally serviced recently using NOS parts. No clue on the internals, however.

The lugs look rounded from brushing the lug tops freehand rather than using the right method. Or, maybe it's just really unfortunate lighting making it look worse than in person.

Get photos of the watch face straight on and detailed shots of each lug. That will help.

[springer]

Based on the dial, the watch is from 79 to around 1982. The insert is genuine but later production. Bracelet could be original for the watch - date codes are E 1980, F 1981, G 1982, H 1983, I 1984. (First 16750s had 6.1 million serial numbers.)

A serial number would help the discussion.

[Knarfnyc]

Thanks everyone for your comments! I’m getting a lot of opposing view so I am having a hard time figuring out who’s to follow. This is my what my gut tells me:

Lugs: I think it’s a bad picture. so once I have a close up I will be able to tell the condition

Insert: this one is hard. When I first saw the picture I had the same reaction “looks too new” but I have seen other 16750 with the same rich color. I have no doubt it’s a Rolex insert and not second market. The question is is it original to the watch when it came off the assembly line? Is there a way to tell?

Crystal: once I have the close up picture I can better tell the condition. How can you tell if the crystal Is original to the watch when it first came off the assembly line? Like the bezel it’s this hard to tell?

[Knarfnyc]

Thanks Springer for your post. By “later production” do you mean the insert could be a replacement and not original to the watch when it was shipped from the factory?

[Knarfnyc]

I couldn’t find any information on 16750 dial. Do you know where to look? How many 16750 dial variations are out there?

[springer]

The insert is later production. Not from the era for tbe watch.


I would be careful with your 40-year-old crystal. It adds no value for me wben I purchase. What's important is the case, dial, original bracelet and insert. That's where the value is.

[Knarfnyc]

How can you tell the insert is a later production?

[037]

Originally Posted by Knarfnyc

How can you tell the insert is a later production?

Experience. It's a mid-'90s service insert. Rolex might still make them that way to keep the vintage look but that's how they looked around that time.

Originally Posted by Knarfnyc

I have no doubt it’s a Rolex insert and not second market. The question is is it original to the watch when it came off the assembly line? Is there a way to tell?

You've seen other 16750s with that bezel because they, too, have had their inserts replaced. A watch that old with the original insert will be faded purely because the red dyes used in anodizing back then weren't as colorfast as later dyes. It's why so many inserts have faded to orange, pink or entirely faded to the raw aluminum color. The blue dyes were better but also found themselves fading with time.

If you're looking for a genuine 16750 then this certainly looks genuine. If you're looking for one with 100% production-line parts, this isn't it. It's still a great watch either way, assuming the lugs aren't too bad.

[Knarfnyc]

An update to everyone who have commented on this thread.

The 16750 turned out to be a dud!

-The case back had the 1675 ref. Number and not 16750
-The ref number on the claspt had a R12 number which didn’t match the typical claspt ref numbers
-You guys were right about the bezel
-The lume on the second hand did not match the rest
-the lump on some of the hour/second indicators were missing

This dealer wanted $15.5 for the watch claiming that gmt 16750 are hot right now. Such BS!!!

Lesson learned, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!

[Knarfnyc]

[QUOTE=037;8392966]Experience. It's a mid-'90s service insert. Rolex might still make them that way to keep the vintage look but that's how they looked around that time.


You've seen other 16750s with that bezel because they, too, have had their inserts replaced. A watch that old with the original insert will be faded purely because the red dyes used in anodizing back then weren't as colorfast as later dyes. It's why so many inserts have faded to orange, pink or entirely faded to the raw aluminum color. The blue dyes were better but also found themselves fading with time.

If you're looking for a genuine 16750 then this certainly looks genuine. If you're looking for one with 100% production-line parts, this isn't it. It's still a great watch either way, assuming the lugs aren't too bad.[/QUOTE.

Update. The watch had a case back with 1675 and not 16750. Claspt had a R12 ref number which was not typical of Rolex ref numbers. There were so many questionable details on this watch! And the guy wanted $15.5k claiming that 16750 are hot. Outrageous!!!!