"rare"? what does it mean? A "64 GMT gilt with...

[atticusbaeker]

I am new here but am often on the WUS forum for Omega as I primarily collect vintage Omegas now.
However-I do own a GMT and a '81 SS Date-Just which both work exceptionally well and have never given me a single problem despite that the '64 has not even been serviced since at least the very early 80s

I also should say I just took new pics and will post as soon as I can load into a hosting site. But here is one of the old, not-so-great pics




I have an early '64 GMT in extremely fine condition (it has no dinks ,fading, dents, etc. but has normal but very light surface wear. Its not NOS but is in overall great shape. It also has gold hands that many on the WUS forum thought were just SShands that corroded. I have since had a member tell me that some of the earliest GMTs with square crown guards had the gold minute,hr. and second hand that were also on some late 50s-early 60s Tudors and Explorers. The reason the small size 24hr pointer is SS is-I assume-because it was never manufactered in the gold tone of my hands.

So-I just took a bunch of new and hopefully much better pics which I will post as soon as I can get then on a hosting site. I would appreciate if I can be given the benefit of the doubt that my description is accurate (for now).

Why? Because it has been in the family since it was purchased new by a grandfather and given to a sick uncle of mine who loved the watch but was bed-ridden for most of the time he wore it from '69 to his death in '80. Some thought the dial wasnt even 'gilt' but it is. And there is absolutely no chance the watch was re-lumed, re-dialed or worked on as many have pointed out (reasonably so since, after all-they don't know me) But until I post the pics id appreciate just a general amnesty and an acceptance of my word that the watch is 100% auth. and orig.

Now-If its assumed that all I described is totally accurate and I really do have an early '64 gilt-dial in very fine overall condition that 100% authentic and 100% original that came with the gold hands as well as the gilt lettering would this qualify as A) a very, B)a fairly, or C) just a moderately rare vintage Rolex?

The word "rare" is used so much in the vintage watch world that I really have no idea how rare a watch like mine really is. I've been told it is "rare" but I'm not so sure what that means.

And- I am NOT-i repeat-not looking for a value. I have seen the range of prices being asked for asst. "gilt-dials" and they range from the completely insane to -well -mostly the prices seem way too high to me but I've seen some more realistic prices as well. I'm more concerned with knowing exactly what I have first-before I make any decisions if selling is even a good idea. Maybe in this economy-as much as I need the funds-it would make very bad sense to sell now when the market is flooded with vintage Rlx? But if i had something very unique-it could make a difference. (Or I may become too attached and never sell for example. After all- who wants to sell the only watch in their collection that is truly "very" rare? But I'm totally open and have no expectations. I only found out a year ago -by pure luck and chance-about the 'gilt-dial' thing so I obviously have much to learn.

And if any opinions are really impossible w/o any pics-I apologize and will post soon. Also-I posted a thread (which I dont know how to 'link' to in the WUS rolex forum called Angry & sad:Gilt dial...(I cant even access the WUS forum now because the site is down)

But any help is much appreciated.

[Tools]

Welcome to TRF..

If you know the history of your watch, you are well ahead of most who are researching an older reference.

A ~'64 GMT 1675 with gilt/gloss dial and small hand is not particularly rare... I believe that the small hand was made until about 1968; but it is more rare than other models. What would make this rare is that you know the history and it's been in the same family..

If you have the accompanying paperwork from the original purchase to show provenance back to the beginning, then collectors of such things would be interested and the value would be more..

It may also be important to know if anything was changed in that '80s service, such as the dial..

If your target was a collector, then it should be left as-is.. If the goal was to showcase a family heirloom, restore it, and have a functional watch... then I would enlist the help of a professional Rolex restoration watchmaker - Mr. Bob Ridley at www.Watchmakers.com comes to mind..

[atticusbaeker]

Thanks for your opinion. I was told by some of the regular posters on WUS that I'd probably find out the 'info' more quickly over here.

And yes-you have hit upon what I know is a big weakness if I ever were to sell this watch: provenance. while I know the exact history as well as a few others in the family-unfortunately I didnt become interested in collecting watches until years after I inherited this GMT. I still remember my mother used the green box for sewing supplies. And I am sure the paperwork is long gone as well. The reason I have toyed with the idea of selling this watch off and on for the past few years is that as much as I appreciate it and am amazed at its accuracy, precision, and condition (it truly is 100% original and in the 1980 cleaning-it was strictly cleaned. It was done by a 90 yr old rolex man who used to work for my great-uncles jewelry store which did sell Rolex up until the 70s. He was hoping my grandmother would 'date' him and he cleaned the GMT for almost no charge. It has run perfectly since and I know he didnt switch out or chnge anything as he was pretty much just making sure a tiny bit of moisture I let in did not cause any problems. And that moisture is probably what made a couple of the lume index's look a bit 'puffy' as they say.] But thats the story and its not a story that can be supported with hard paperwork. In this world of fakes and scam artists-who can be expected to trust somebody's word unless they know the person well? So I have always assumed that if the watch itself is rare but not extremely rare-I would not be able to get the kind of money that would make me want to sell.

So-that is one of the reasons for me trying to find out if the combination of the original dial, gilt lettering and hands was any more than what I believe is a desirable but not-as you said-a particularly rare watch. Other people disagree and say it is "rare". I've had them tell me this. But I have learned with Rolex-it is much better to expect a lot less as the more rare the watch-the more serious the collector. The more serious the collector/buyer-the more they are likely to know.

Oh-one more question? Do you know if it is possible to find out from Rolex anything about a watch from the serial # dating back to '64? I have read about this but do not remember if it was only one particular brand that kept serial # records.
And at the very worst? I continue to struggle like millions of others in a rough economy but hang on to a beautiful watch whose un=provable provenance is known at least -to myself.

[atticusbaeker]

Also-there is one other possible 'issue' with this watch. I have said on other Rlx forums that my gilt-dial is almost "pristine" but then I describe it as not looking like the mirror gloss or the matte. I describe it as having what looks- an only under a loupe-a very fine and very evenly dispersed texture. Its not quite as textured as an eggshell finish but I am starting to think that NeilUK may be correct and that even though this "texture" looks great, no flaking, not even a faded patina-just a beautiful gloss black with a tiny bit of texture-it actually may be a result of that "tiny bit of moisture" that led me to have the watch cleaned in '80. So-I have taken much better pics and will probably post them in a new thread asking for any experts to tell me wetgher they think the gloss dial is in a normal 40 yr old condition -or- if there was any additional moisture damage that just looks great to me-in my inexpert opinion?