1675 GMT v 16710 GMT which is more collectable

[996marty]

Could be a stupid question I own a 16710 GMT and have considered trading it for a 1675 GMT issued in the year of my birth,I know I’m getting old.With the way the 16710 has gone crazy over the last few years it’s almost caught up in value to the 1675 would I be stupid to trade it or do the brains trust think the 1675 is a superior watch? Just interested in anyone’s thoughts.

[donald83]

I'm hunting for a 16700 because it is sapphire but still a GMT1.

I think 1675 is more collectible

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[BigBlue1]

It may Depend on what you have. Please share for a better visual. Me personally, I wouldn’t get rid of my 1675 for a 16710.

[996marty]

IMG_2Feb2020at33517pm.jpg my 16710 sorry not the best shot

[BigBlue1]

Originally Posted by 996marty

Attachment 1106474 my 16710 sorry not the best shot

It’s a beautiful watch don’t get me wrong as yours looks lovely, but from collectibility stand point, 1675 more collectible. I want a COKE at some point and or would love one.

[1watch]

Hands down a 1675 is more collectible. I also wouldn’t let the birth year notion drive the decision, as that could cloud one’s
focus on getting the best
option. Get the best condition 1675 within your budget and you won’t be sorry.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[donald83]

Originally Posted by 1watch

Hands down a 1675 is more collectible. I also wouldn’t let the birth year notion drive the decision, as that could cloud one’s
focus on getting the best
option. Get the best condition 1675 within your budget and you won’t be sorry.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I admit I am clouded by birth year as that seriously restricts my choices.

I saw one that I like (16700) but I cant tell if the lugs are over polished. Looks fine to me. Any opinions?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[2th_doc]

The 16710 is becoming more and more collectible w/ time. The 16710 is however the best of both worlds. It has a slight charm and feel of vintage. But it also has the specifications/standards of modern. I have a D serial 16710 w/ all 3 inserts. I would only add if I was craving a new piece. But there is no way that I would trade/sell my 16710 for ANYTHING.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1watch]

From a collector viewpoint, I won’t let birth year be a driver. If the best piece happens to be from my birth year it’s interesting, but not really important. I have a 1675 and no way I would say a 16710 in similar condition is as desirable. If you want a 16710, then find the best one in your budget and don’t worry about it being made in your birth year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[donald83]

Originally Posted by 1watch

From a collector viewpoint, I won’t let birth year be a driver. If the best piece happens to be from my birth year it’s interesting, but not really important. I have a 1675 and no way I would say a 16710 in similar condition is as desirable. If you want a 16710, then find the best one in your budget and don’t worry about it being made in your birth year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about 16750, 16700 and 16710 from a collection point of view across those 3 in terms of ranking?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[onthedial]

@donald83
A matte dial 16750 is far and away the most sought after in your group of three.
————
IG: @onthedial


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[996marty]

Good to read everyone’s views obviously the older watch is probably more desirable but it’s interesting to see how the 16710 is viewed now and going into the future how it will be looked upon.

[Rado63]

It's a really good question, 1675 v 16710. Initial impression is that the four digit would be a rarer piece to find. Looking around and it seems quite a few examples for sale, so the factor that determines the price is the condition. If I were investing to buy and hold, then 1675 , if I want to hold but wear everyday I would keep the five digit.

[Swearengen]

They both wear slightly differently. 1675 has a more "vintage" feel. Tudor included for reference.

[lee fowler]

Another trio here and roughly 27 years between each one. I think the 1675 is more collectable but it is getting harder to find a good honest example!

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by lee fowler

Another trio here and roughly 27 years between each one.

You have an amazing collection my friend

[lee fowler]

Originally Posted by brandrea

You have an amazing collection my friend

Thanks buddy.

[greatgoo]

I would agree with @onthedial

It appears to me the 16750 has somewhat flown under the radar. The popular 1675 that was produced from 1956-1980 is iconic with the matte dial and hesalite crystal. Then the 16750 came with the new quick-set date from 1980-1988. The interesting thing is the 16750 from 1980-1984 came with the matte dial and hesalite crystal. The reference then transitioned to a glossy dial and sapphire crystal. It is also my understanding that if a matte dial 16750 were to be serviced by Rolex that they would swap out the dial for a glossy one (not sure if that is truly accurate).

So from a rarity perspective. I think the 16750 with the matte dial is harder to come by then a 1675 or 16710.

[lee fowler]

Originally Posted by greatgoo

I would agree with @onthedial

It appears to me the 16750 has somewhat flown under the radar. The popular 1675 that was produced from 1956-1980 is iconic with the matte dial and hesalite crystal. Then the 16750 came with the new quick-set date from 1980-1988. The interesting thing is the 16750 from 1980-1984 came with the matte dial and hesalite crystal. The reference then transitioned to a glossy dial and sapphire crystal. It is also my understanding that if a matte dial 16750 were to be serviced by Rolex that they would swap out the dial for a glossy one (not sure if that is truly accurate).

So from a rarity perspective. I think the 16750 with the matte dial is harder to come by then a 1675 or 16710.

The 16750 was never offered with a sapphire crystal. The only GMT offered with a sapphire crystal was the 16700.

[greatgoo]

I believe I have heard of 16750s having sapphire crystal. Maybe that is then a service crystal replacement?

[athom]

1675 > 16700, 16710, 16760, etc...by far !

[marcusp23]

Originally Posted by lee fowler

Another trio here and roughly 27 years between each one. I think the 1675 is more collectable but it is getting harder to find a good honest example!

Wow. What a shot. That settles it, you need all 3!

[zapokee]

1675 hands down for me.

[BamaHammer]

If you cannot afford to buy the 1675, then just keep your 16710 and enjoy life

[lee fowler]

Originally Posted by greatgoo

I believe I have heard of 16750s having sapphire crystal. Maybe that is then a service crystal replacement?

Sorry but this is incorrect the 16750 only came with a plastic crystal.

[mineral]

Difficult choice as I own both the 1675 and 16710.

But if I may ask, are you active person and like to do outdoor activities? I think the neo vintage 16710 is better watch considering the higher water resistance and sapphire crystal. Not saying that 1675 can’t withstand these activities but the 16710 definitely better choice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1675-David]

the 1675 just oozes charm, it's such a gorgeous time-piece and I love mine to bits..

[greatgoo]

@leeflower - okay. Thanks for the correction. I am still learning about the 16750 reference myself. I thought I had it sorted out, but appears not. Hahaha. Apologize for the potential confusion to other TRF members.

That being said, I still the 16750 is still a special rare bird.

[1watch]

Originally Posted by donald83

How about 16750, 16700 and 16710 from a collection point of view across those 3 in terms of ranking?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

For me I would put the 16750 next. Still has the similar look with matte dial and tritium. I briefly owned a mint 5513 transitional model and sold it because I preferred the full vintage appeal of the matte dial without gold hour marker surrounds. Nothing wrong with those models, it’s really personal preference if they are priced accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HDMW]

Hello Forum :
I've just jointed.
I have a Rolex GMT Master 1675. I bought it when I was flying in Northern Canada in '75 and have worn it ever since. Indeed I became so accustomed to it, I even wore it on site when I was building a house here in France. I only discovered these watches are quite valuable, by accident. Now I'm trying to understand what I have.

I looked at some watches for sale to get an idea of value and discovered my watch is a 'long-E' type. Why would a dealer bother to mention the length of the E in the name Rolex?

The watch was serviced by Rolex in Paris a month ago and it has a new bracelet. (The old one had become a bit stretched).

What is considered a 'good example' of a 1675

I can't help asking a rank amateur question: Why would buy a 45 year old watch when he could get a new one for less money and one which looks identical?

Regards : Hubert Wagner