Does this 1675 MKII look legit?

[ADINVA]

Happy weekend to everyone.

I come across a good clean 1675 MK II (S/N: 2.5mil). Although my web research indicates this SN should be a MK I Long E, I am not sure if MK II does fall into this production range.

Could I please have comments on whether this is a genuine clean 1675 MK II? Also, is the pepsi insert genuine and period correct too?

Many thanks in advance!4.jpg

5.jpg

7.jpg

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

8.jpg

9.jpg

10.jpg

[ADINVA]

The pepsi insert

11.jpg

[ADINVA]

Pepsi Insert #2. Is this blue-back pepsi insert real? I can't tell if this is genuine or an aftermarket insert.

Many thanks in advance too.

20230102_162530.jpg

20230102_162502.jpg

20230102_162432.jpg

20230102_162351.jpg

20230102_162316.jpg

20230102_162240.jpg

[TimeToGo]

.
Don't know if its your camera or the glass giving the impression that the text of the dial is thicker than it should be and unable to comment on the plots. You need better pictures.

You are correct or not the norm that this dial would be found in this serial. Who knows what happened along the way, if it even came with this dial.

Do you have pictures of the reference numbers / caseback, hard to give you an opinion on a "clean" watch fitted with a later dial, if in fact just may be a parts watch.

[Swearengen]

As TTG said the Rolex printing looks way to heavy for a factory dial.

[ADINVA]

Many thanks TimeToGo and Swearengen for your most valuable comments. Any thoughts on the pepsi insert #2. I love the leopard red.

[Swearengen]

I would have thought a period correct insert would be a red back.

Originally Posted by ADINVA

Many thanks TimeToGo and Swearengen for your most valuable comments. Any thoughts on the pepsi insert #2. I love the leopard red.

[KY..]

IMO it looks like a Bart Simpson GMT Master which doesn’t exist…
Tread carefully!

[springer]

I would consider this watch with a Mark II dial to be from my proverbial "a watch with a story" line or "an incorrect dial" - pick the one you like. For me, based on the serial number, the dial is incorrect for this GMT and well within the Mark I dial era.

During the past 60 years, many dials have been changed out on these vintage watches, with many having been changed out incorrectly.

As far as the font looking too fat on this Mark II dial, that would have been caused by the camera or lighting condition.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by springer

I would consider this watch to be from my proverbial "a watch with a story" line or "an incorrect dial" - pick the one you like. For me, based on the serial number, the dial is incorrect for this GMT and well within the Mark I dial era.

During the past 60 years, many dials have been changed out on these vintage watches, with many havi been changed out incorrectly.

JP, the thicker text (also more silver?) that others have raised - that looks fine to you? what Mark is that? (sorry i'm less close to GMTs)

[springer]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

JP, the thicker text (also more silver?) that others have raised - that looks fine to you? what Mark is that? (sorry i'm less close to GMTs)

Check my post again - I just updated it. The font is fine and looks fat based on the camera and or lighting.

The photography is very poor in the photos and the color is off in all the photos. The crystal has a yellow tint and the case has a blue tint in some of the pics. On the whole, very poor photos.

[springer]

The insert appears genuine, circa 1980s.

[ryansoulsit]

Those both inserts are genuine.

The dial is MK 2.

Not sure about the bezel 'cause it doesn't look original to me (I could be wrong).

The case wasn't that bad shape but I love the CG's, It looks nice.

GMT red hand - maybe comes from different watch 'cause the lumes don't match the GMT red hand.

Correct era: the watch (S/N: 2.5mil) - needs to be MK 1, Fat Front red back insert.

[ADINVA]

I really appreciate everyone who has taken the time to provide me with your comments and advices. It is truly the help of you good people that makes my journey into vintage rolex a lot more fun, educational and exciting. Without all the help, I would not dare to even consider purchasing a vintage timepiece.

Many many thanks to everyone. I greatly appreciate all the comments.

[Wahlberg]

What a beautiful fade of the insert and dial, looks amazing together.

[Tom1675]

Originally Posted by Swearengen

I would have thought a period correct insert would be a red back.

Seconding this

[julienbroucaret]

Hello there !
I do not have the knowledge of 90% of the people here but:
- the SN does not match with a mk2, I have a long E with 2-559-xxx serial, it is circa mid 70, it is a singer super white dial
- the typo of the dial shown in the picture looks very "bold" for a correct mk2

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by springer

Check my post again - I just updated it. The font is fine and looks fat based on the camera and or lighting.

The photography is very poor in the photos and the color is off in all the photos. The crystal has a yellow tint and the case has a blue tint in some of the pics. On the whole, very poor photos.

I'm with Springer on this. The font and letter spacings are spot on.... and the font looking a bit heavy is, I also suspect, just image shake.

[ADINVA]

Hi Julien and Turo,

Many thanks for the insights. I have decided to pass on this 1675 simply based on the fact that the dial is not consistent with the serial number of the case. The hunt continues. I am enjoying this great learning experience.

[watch.hunter66]

The dial is beautiful and rare. The thickness of the fonts was caused by a pad too full of paint.

[springer]

Originally Posted by watch.hunter66

The dial is beautiful and rare. The thickness of the fonts was caused by a pad too full of paint.

The most common source for fat font looking dials is with the photography or photographer. I've seen this aberration several times the past 30 years and have had some of my own photos turn out this way on a few occasions.

[btinl]

I’ve seen some other mk2 dials with this fat print where the Rs in particular look unusual. My suspicion was for counterfeit dial.

[antrolexsub]

Dial is fine just printed with worn printing cliche, same reason you get the mega fat font inserts.

[btinl]

Originally Posted by antrolexsub

Dial is fine just printed with worn printing cliche, same reason you get the mega fat font inserts.

Seems much less common or we’d have a dealer “fat font” dial craze

[antrolexsub]

Originally Posted by btinl

Seems much less common or we’d have a dealer “fat font” dial craze

Yes much less common, I’ve only really seen it on Lemrich manufactured dials. Don’t give them ideas

[watch.hunter66]

Originally Posted by springer

The most common source for fat font looking dials is with the photography or photographer. I've seen this aberration several times the past 30 years and have had some of my own photos turn out this way on a few occasions.

It is possible, true. It is sufficient that the direct light is too strong and the aperture too open, the white explodes.

[watch.hunter66]

Originally Posted by btinl

I’ve seen some other mk2 dials with this fat print where the Rs in particular look unusual. My suspicion was for counterfeit dial.

Best way is to examine the back side.