GMT 1975 MK1 Question

[GREG77]

Hi All, I have a GMT which by all indications (based on my research and past posts on the forum) looks to be a late 60's/early 70's watch with an MK1 dial. it has the long E, open 6's & 9's and flat 3. The confusing part is that the serial number begins 540.... which puts it in the 1977 range per various serial ref charts. Could and MK1 have been produced that late? Would love to hear the opinions of some of the GMT experts. Thanks!

[GREG77]

**excuse the typo....1675

[lee fowler]

Any pics of the serial number? If the serial number is correct then the dial has been changed out for some reason.

[Pocosso]

Greg,
make a test, check if it is an Hacking Movement, pull the crown to set the time and see if the seconds hand is moving or if it is "Hacked".
The we may do a couple of consideration.

[GREG77]

thanks, here it is. I hear you on the dial, the other confusing thing is that the open 6's, 9's and flat 3's are more consistent with early 70's, not 77'. That's based on what I've read, certainly could be wrong there.

[GREG77]

Pocosso,

the seconds hand moves slightly, the equivalent of a few seconds, but no more than that. When I do the same test on my 16710, the seconds hand doesn't move at all. I hope that answer makes sense. thanks.

[Tom1675]

Not sure what's going on with the lume on this piece looks a little looser (12) than I would expect. Maybe its the angle but the 10 o'clock looks to be lollipop'd and the 4 & 5 o'clocks appear to be missing some lume. Could be the pic though.

As for your question, there's no way MK1 is correct in a 5m piece. Service cases are mid 4m so things have been swapped...

[lupus66]

Its not a 154xxxxx?

[GREG77]

From what I can see it’s 7 digits total beginning with 5

[lee fowler]

Originally Posted by Tom1675

Not sure what's going on with the lume on this piece looks a little looser (12) than I would expect. Maybe its the angle but the 10 o'clock looks to be lollipop'd and the 4 & 5 o'clocks appear to be missing some lume. Could be the pic though.

As for your question, there's no way MK1 is correct in a 5m piece. Service cases are mid 4m so things have been swapped...

It looks like an early puffy lume dial, I have a similar one in my 68 GMT.

[GREG77]

The 10 does appear to be lollipop’d. My untrained eye doesn’t see anything amiss with the 4 or 5.

[1watch]

1, 4, 5 lume plots appear to sit just off the marker as opposed to the others. Hands appear to be color matched...may be the pic angle on the plots, but that's what I see.

[GREG77]

there are other examples of puffy lume MK1 dials with inconsistencies with lollipop/no lollopops. most seem to be ~1968'. I was less concerned about the dial and if anything it seems somewhat rare.
I'm just struggling with the fact that the watch is later 70's. i got it at a good price but can still unwind the trade if i want to.

[springer]

The spacing of the tritium markers to the hash marks are not consistent. A few of the makers and hash marks even appear to touch each other. I would have someone that is familiar with reluming techniques to verify whether the dial is relumed or not.

The dial has obviously been replaced at some point in time since it is way earlier than the watch's serial number.

Below is a GMT 1675 with a 1968 case back and a 1.8 million serial number. Notice the puffy lume markers.

[GREG77]

Very interesting, thanks for the info. When I search chrome 24 under mk1 dials, there are a couple of “Puffy lume “ examples which seem to have the same spacing issues, so I thought perhaps some were produced this way. I hadn’t given much thought to the possibility of it being relumed.

[1watch]

Originally Posted by GREG77

Very interesting, thanks for the info. When I search chrome 24 under mk1 dials, there are a couple of “Puffy lume “ examples which seem to have the same spacing issues, so I thought perhaps some were produced this way. I hadn’t given much thought to the possibility of it being relumed.

I agree with springer and would suspect possible re-lume.

[springer]

Originally Posted by GREG77

Very interesting, thanks for the info. When I search chrome 24 under mk1 dials, there are a couple of “Puffy lume “ examples which seem to have the same spacing issues, so I thought perhaps some were produced this way. I hadn’t given much thought to the possibility of it being relumed.

You can't always be 100% with photos therefore my suggestion to you was to have it checked by someone with the proper tools/equipment and knowledge.

[GREG77]

The other one I referred to earlier also had some of the hour markers touching the hashes as well. It happened to be from 1968 and is quite expensive- which is why i was hoping it was a rare dial, those hopes are fading though! tks again for all of the opinions.

[Pocosso]

Originally Posted by GREG77

Pocosso,

the seconds hand moves slightly, the equivalent of a few seconds, but no more than that. When I do the same test on my 16710, the seconds hand doesn't move at all. I hope that answer makes sense. thanks.

If it is a "non hacking" movement this means that is has been manufactured before 1971. This match with the dial"
Rolex was resaving the cases between 4mil to around 5mil as service cases.
in the history of your watch it may be, that for some reason the case was damaged and they may have change it.
Your case is a bait over this range, but with Rolex you never know...

It may make sense.

[Erpin]

5.4m should have a mk5 dial.

[rootbeer7]

It’s a poor photo, but do serial numbers look wrong; almost to small and deep?

[GREG77]

Here’s a better pic.

[Pocosso]

The picture is not sufficiently good, but the numbers looks to me a bit to small.
Can you return the watch?
It is nice, but start to be a bit suspicious.

[athom]

Originally Posted by Erpin

5.4m should have a mk5 dial.

or mk4 ?

[Vincent65]

Incidentally, flat 3 on date-wheel isn't period-correct for MKI/Long E dial. Should be round-top 3s and hooked 7s. Just saying...

[GREG77]

Helpful thanks, I’ve been trying to confirm that point.

[LSU-MOOSE]

I have a 1675 that I just purchased at an estate sale. I brought it to my AD for an appraisal and they recommended sending it to Rolex and now I wait.

[Pocosso]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Incidentally, flat 3 on date-wheel isn't period-correct for MKI/Long E dial. Should be round-top 3s and hooked 7s. Just saying...

I had 2 Long E, for witch I was sure about, and they both were 1970 and flat top.
The difference for the late 60 and the 77 should be the date wheel in white and not in silver.
So fro 54xxx the flat top 3 should be correct.

[rootbeer7]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Incidentally, flat 3 on date-wheel isn't period-correct for MKI/Long E dial. Should be round-top 3s and hooked 7s. Just saying...

I had an untouched and later mk1 which had no hooked 7s or round top 3.

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

I had an untouched and later mk1 which had no hooked 7s or round top 3.

I've seen them too. Never seen any evidence suggesting this is incorrect.