GMT II moniker?

[jl2fa]

For some reason, I am not a fan of numbers in product names. GMT-MASTER II seems to imply a III will come later, and it takes away from the timeless aspects of the watch, imo.

Anyone else feel this way? Love the new pepsi ss but I can’t bring myself to purchase because of the name.

[FTX I]

Well that's a new reason.

[brucethemanlee]

Rolex had GMT Master for almost 30 years and its been GMT Master II almost 40 years now. So you saying you can't buy a watch because of a name with an extra "I" that may or may not get added every 30 years or so?

Your money your watch. Everyone will have their reasons to like or dislike a watch.

For me, the name doesn't bother me at all, especially given the frequency of change

[brucethemanlee]

Originally Posted by ftx i

well that's a new reason.

+1

[Jacobson]

Way I understand it is that the GMT Master II was named thus as the original GMT Master was sold along with the new watch.

The Master II was introduced with a distinctly different level of functionality wherein the GMT hour hand could be set independently of one another.

So, My guess is a Master III will need to have a new functional feature. (day, month or even an additional GMT hand)

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by Jacobson

Way I understand it is that the GMT Master II was named thus as the original GMT Master was sold along with the new watch.

The Master II was introduced with a distinctly different level of functionality wherein the GMT hour hand could be set independently of one another.

So, My guess is a Master III will need to have a new functional feature. (day, month or even an additional GMT hand)

I did not know this, thanks for sharing :)

[sholzer]

Originally Posted by Jacobson

Way I understand it is that the GMT Master II was named thus as the original GMT Master was sold along with the new watch.

The Master II was introduced with a distinctly different level of functionality wherein the GMT hour hand could be set independently of one another.

So, My guess is a Master III will need to have a new functional feature. (day, month or even an additional GMT hand)

Came here to say this. GMT Master II is not going anywhere anytime soon, if at all.

[Reddy_Kilowatt]

Originally Posted by jl2fa

For some reason, I am not a fan of numbers in product names. GMT-MASTER II seems to imply a III will come later, and it takes away from the timeless aspects of the watch, imo.

Anyone else feel this way? Love the new pepsi ss but I can’t bring myself to purchase because of the name.

That makes zero sense.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Well that's a new reason.

Uh...yeah.

[liuk3]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Well that's a new reason.

[jl2fa]

Hah, looks like I'm the odd-one out then. Thanks for the interesting backstory, Jacobson.

[Carry The Interest]

Originally Posted by Jacobson

Way I understand it is that the GMT Master II was named thus as the original GMT Master was sold along with the new watch.

The Master II was introduced with a distinctly different level of functionality wherein the GMT hour hand could be set independently of one another.

So, My guess is a Master III will need to have a new functional feature. (day, month or even an additional GMT hand)

Never knew this about the GMT history. Thanks for sharing!

Regarding functionality, I suppose the same applies then for the Yacht Master line, although it's different in that both products are both part of the current line-up and there isn't really a reason to disco the I given what the II can do.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Well that's a new reason.

Flavio, my friend, seems like “anything goes” around here lately!

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by The Libertine

Flavio, my friend, seems like “anything goes” around here lately!

[Colin G]

I am a Toronto Raptors fan but I hate the name. Worst name ever for an NBA team if you ask me, but I'm still a fan.

[101031-28]

All the 'II' signifies to me, is a techical improvement in the GMT hour hand ability to be set independently from the hour hand. Bummer it's keeping you from enjoying the watch.. Maybe the other refs 1675, 16750 and 16700 would be a better option since the dial would only say 'GMT-Master'

[jl2fa]

Originally Posted by 101031-28

All the 'II' signifies to me, is a techical improvement in the GMT hour hand ability to be set independently from the hour hand. Bummer it's keeping you from enjoying the watch.. Maybe the other refs 1675, 16750 and 16700 would be a better option since the dial would only say 'GMT-Master'

A bummer indeed.. I wish they'd updated only the reference number!

[jl2fa]

Originally Posted by 101031-28

All the 'II' signifies to me, is a techical improvement in the GMT hour hand ability to be set independently from the hour hand. Bummer it's keeping you from enjoying the watch.. Maybe the other refs 1675, 16750 and 16700 would be a better option since the dial would only say 'GMT-Master'

Bummer indeed... wish they'd only updated the reference number!

[Hamstur]

Was curious and looked it up (i.e., I didn't know this before Googling) but GMT launched in '54 and GMT II in '83 after MAJOR revisions. So in 54 years, they did 1 major revision 25 years ago and this makes it a no-go? You are definitely on your own. Heck, I just got my GMT II 116710LN yesterday!

Thinking about cars, the same mindset means you would have to drive something like a Toyota Camry and never consider a BMW or Benz? But Porsche and Audi are on the OK list.

[Reddy_Kilowatt]

Originally Posted by Hamstur

Was curious and looked it up (i.e., I didn't know this before Googling) but GMT launched in '54 and GMT II in '83 after MAJOR revisions. So in 54 years, they did 1 major revision 25 years ago and this makes it a no-go? You are definitely on your own. Heck, I just got my GMT II 116710LN yesterday!

Thinking about cars, the same mindset means you would have to drive something like a Toyota Camry and never consider a BMW or Benz? But Porsche and Audi are on the OK list.

Yep. GMT Master III with 4 time zones is just around the corner.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by jl2fa

For some reason, I am not a fan of numbers in product names. GMT-MASTER II seems to imply a III will come later, and it takes away from the timeless aspects of the watch, imo.

Anyone else feel this way? Love the new pepsi ss but I can’t bring myself to purchase because of the name.

The name GMT-Master II means that there was once a GMT-Master.

There could be a GMT-Master III at some future time, and probably will be, but that's the march of progress.

Whatever floats your boat in terms of what you buy and do not buy.

[Rashid.bk]

It's obvious we are at the bottom of the barrel of reasons to not like a watch.
I'm honestly a little surprised by this one. Can't help you but was curious and happy to at least be entertained. Glad I don't have this issue. Good luck.

[jl2fa]

Originally Posted by Hamstur

Was curious and looked it up (i.e., I didn't know this before Googling) but GMT launched in '54 and GMT II in '83 after MAJOR revisions. So in 54 years, they did 1 major revision 25 years ago and this makes it a no-go? You are definitely on your own. Heck, I just got my GMT II 116710LN yesterday!

Thinking about cars, the same mindset means you would have to drive something like a Toyota Camry and never consider a BMW or Benz? But Porsche and Audi are on the OK list.

Nope, it's more that I think that naming of GMT II follows devices such as iPhone 4, 5, 6, etc.

If you look at BMW M3 or Porsche 911, There isn't an M3 II or 911 II (only chassis "reference" numbers are changed, such as e92 or 997.2)

I wish Rolex did the same for the GMT-MASTER II -- just keep the GMT-MASTER name and update only the reference (new features such as upgrades in movement are implied in the new reference number anyway).

Again, I was curious if others felt that way, but it looks like a resounding "No". No need to be riled up gentlemen. I'm certainly not actively looking for reasons to not like a watch.

To each his own.