Assistance in reviewing two 1675 Pepsi GMT

[mray2686]

Vintage Experts-
Saw two beautiful pepsi examples today. Would love opinions on both.

First option:
Should be '68 reference range. Says original dial, hands, and bezel. Bracelet is well stretched, but plan to run with leather strap. Serviced and ready to go. Looks like this case has seen a bit more polishing as lugs are peaking through (top right, especially) I now realize I have photos blocking the crown of the dial...rookie mistake. Lume shows more creamy in person than with photos. This bezel has some 'wide looking' 4's. Comparing between the two, noticeable difference to my eye. Both genuine? Period correct? This doesn't appear to me like a fat font.

IMG_1596.jpg

IMG_1597.jpg


Second option:
Should be '71-'72 reference. Service dial, replaced hands. Bezel, not sure but looks 'well worn'. Bracelet is decent shape. Again, will run with leather strap. This case looks less polished between the two. Serviced and ready to go.

IMG_1594.jpg

IMG_1595.jpg

Any help and insight would be greatly appreciated!

[springer]

You're answered most of your own concerns on the second one. Not much more to add.

The first one does not have the correct dial and the insert is much later, probably a blue back.

[jfmiii]

listen to John! he has said all you need to know about the watches. non-original dial is a non-starter for me

[mray2686]

Thank you for the quick replies - what points out the first one is not original dial? I'm having a tough time distinguishing between originals and not. Again, sorry for the poor photo blocking out the crown and rolex script.

[springer]

Originally Posted by mray2686

Thank you for the quick replies - what points out the first one is not original dial? I'm having a tough time distinguishing between originals and not. Again, sorry for the poor photo blocking out the crown and rolex script.

I can see enough to know it is not a Mark I. It appears to be a Mark II.

Below is a compilation of most GMT dials.

https://rolexvintageforum.com/viewforum.php?f=21

[Ckci]

Originally Posted by springer

I can see enough to know it is not a Mark I. It appears to be a Mark II.

Below is a compilation of most GMT dials.

https://rolexvintageforum.com/viewforum.php?f=21

Wow Springer that link is a great reference you put together! Thanks for sharing your great depth of knowledge!
Russell

[Michael M.]

What is the serial of the first 1675 shown? I agree with Springer, as if the watch is indeed a 1968 the dial is later. However, I do know that a lot of sellers don't always date their watches correctly.

[chessebj]

Originally Posted by Michael M.

I do know that a lot of sellers don't always date their watches correctly.

Especially if they use any of the common databases.

[mray2686]

Originally Posted by Michael M.

What is the serial of the first 1675 shown? I agree with Springer, as if the watch is indeed a 1968 the dial is later. However, I do know that a lot of sellers don't always date their watches correctly.

Very good question. I'm going to ask for the serial number tomorrow so I can reference.

Overall, I think the watch looks good - but maybe just the wrong info from the seller.

If it is a Mark II dial, everything else on it look period correct? I believe Springer said the bezel is from a later model, but authentic, correct?