Your thoughts on this 1675 I am almost set on.

[theflywrist]

Hey guys!
Back again for some more input on the much awaited hunt for a 1675 that ticks all the boxes.
Have already asked the seller if I may post these pictures for other's insights.
This one appears to be a MK V and a 5.2M serial.

Case and dial look great and all checks out to me as far as I can tell.
78360 bracelet with 558 end links. Bracelet is very tight as well. But the plexi will definitely need a polish.

Would love to see your inputs. If you see anything off, or have any doubts at all.
A second and third opinion are always better IMO.

Thanks guys!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theflywrist]

Apologies for the size of the pics.
Uploaded directly from my phone, and not sure how to resize..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jdog111578]

Looks like a really nice example. Maybe just some polywatch for the crystal vs a polish. But the dial seems to be in very good condition with great matching patina. Pending a fair price I would say a very nice score.

[Miami Manny]

I am a critical watch buyer/seller and have become somewhat of a detective after so many years of doing this...

I think the Hour, Minute, Second hand are relumed. The GMT arrow appears original.
The case has me confused..

On 5.2m watches the chamfers were not this pronounced. If this was an earlier case I would say it looks right but, it doesnt look right to me on a 5.2m

Are you sure your Serial is correct? Can you post photos of the serial, model and inside of caseback?

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by Miami Manny

I am a critical watch buyer/seller and have become somewhat of a detective after so many years of doing this...

I think the Hour, Minute, Second hand are relumed. The GMT arrow appears original.
The case has me confused..

On 5.2m watches the chamfers were not this pronounced. If this was an earlier case I would say it looks right but, it doesnt look right to me on a 5.2m

Are you sure your Serial is correct? Can you post photos of the serial, model and inside of caseback?

Hey there.
The seller didn't want me to post pictures of the serial but I have seen them. It is definitely a 5.21M serial

Here are some more pictures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Miami Manny]

Well, I am going to add my opinion which may or may not be shared by others and may not even be correct, but its my opinion on what I see.

If you are sure the serial said 5.2 and the seller refuses to allow you to post even a partial pic of the number then my opinion is that the case is from the 60's and he had it re-engraved to use this dial. I have seen sellers with older Gilt cases do this because they have money tied up in a watch they cannot find or afford to purchase a Gilt Dial for, so they have the case re-engraved to match whatever dial and movement they have.

Lets do some trouble shooting, this is fun..

If you pull out the crown while the watch is running does the second hand stop or continue moving. If it stops then the movement is earlier than the case and dial because it hacks when it should not hack.

Next, take a look inside the caseback. If it has a date then it isn't correct to this case or serial number. It should have no date and just say 1675.

Lets try and figure it out..

[droptopman]

I tend to agree with Manny regarding the pronounced bevels. Case is nice and thick though. Dial looks great and that insert is a thing of beauty. Would love to have that insert. I would need the watch and a loupe to figure out the hands. It is hard to tell in the pics. Nice looking watch over all. Interested to see what others think.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Miami Manny

Well, I am going to add my opinion which may or may not be shared by others and may not even be correct, but its my opinion on what I see.

If you are sure the serial said 5.2 and the seller refuses to allow you to post even a partial pic of the number then my opinion is that the case is from the 60's and he had it re-engraved to use this dial. I have seen sellers with older Gilt cases do this because they have money tied up in a watch they cannot find or afford to purchase a Gilt Dial for, so they have the case re-engraved to match whatever dial and movement they have.

Lets do some trouble shooting, this is fun..

If you pull out the crown while the watch is running does the second hand stop or continue moving. If it stops then the movement is earlier than the case and dial because it hacks when it should not hack.

Next, take a look inside the caseback. If it has a date then it isn't correct to this case or serial number. It should have no date and just say 1675.

Lets try and figure it out..

If I may, offer a correction to the comments highlighted in blue above. Mid-1970s watches hacked, therefore, if the crown is pulled all the way out, it stops the watch. Based on the 5.2 million serial number of this GMT, it should "hack" if the movement is correct. The earlier GMTs and other watches did not hack - when the crown is pulled all the way out, the watch keeps running.

[g-boac]

The hacking capability was added around 1972 - as always, there's an error bad around that number, whereby as you back up from 1972 you'll be less likely to find, and as you move forward you'll be more likely to find.

The non-hacking movement with date is actually called a calibre 1565; the hacking movement with date is actually called a calibre 1575. The true calibre 1570 is the no-date movement found in 5512 Submariners. Note that all three however, are marked as "1570" on the bridge.

[Miami Manny]

Yes, my dyslexia kicking in mixing up my thoughts...

The movement SHOULD stop the second hand and If it continues to sweep then the movement is older than the dial/case. I mixed it up but, the concept is still correct.

Around 3 mil they changed over (1972) so if this is a 5.2m case it is years newer and there is no chance or possibility the movement should have a second hand that doesnt stop.

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by Miami Manny

Well, I am going to add my opinion which may or may not be shared by others and may not even be correct, but its my opinion on what I see.

If you are sure the serial said 5.2 and the seller refuses to allow you to post even a partial pic of the number then my opinion is that the case is from the 60's and he had it re-engraved to use this dial. I have seen sellers with older Gilt cases do this because they have money tied up in a watch they cannot find or afford to purchase a Gilt Dial for, so they have the case re-engraved to match whatever dial and movement they have.

Lets do some trouble shooting, this is fun..

If you pull out the crown while the watch is running does the second hand stop or continue moving. If it stops then the movement is earlier than the case and dial because it hacks when it should not hack.

Next, take a look inside the caseback. If it has a date then it isn't correct to this case or serial number. It should have no date and just say 1675.

Lets try and figure it out..

Very interesting responses.
Always impressed by the Knowledge of the guys on here.
Here's the case back and another shot of the case.

Will ask about the hacking seconds hands!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Miami Manny]

no pic?

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by Miami Manny

no pic?

Sorry!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Miami Manny]

Caseback is correct for a 5.2, but that is the easiest part to switch..

The engravings are the only real way to tell. Even if the movement hacks or doesnt hack thats the only way to know for sure.

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by springer

If I may, offer a correction to the comments highlighted in blue above. Mid-1970s watches hacked, therefore, if the crown is pulled all the way out, it stops the watch. Based on the 5.2 million serial number of this GMT, it should "hack" if the movement is correct. The earlier GMTs and other watches did not hack - when the crown is pulled all the way out, the watch keeps running.

I do confirm that the seconds hands that hack when crown pulled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1675-David]

Is it not more likey that the case has been refurbished? A great way of getting rid of nicks on the outer edge of the lugs is to cut a chamfer, no?

[springer]

The case is 100% genuine and unaltered - based on the photos sent to me. No need to worry about the serial number and case being correct.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Miami Manny

Well, I am going to add my opinion which may or may not be shared by others and may not even be correct, but its my opinion on what I see.

If you are sure the serial said 5.2 and the seller refuses to allow you to post even a partial pic of the number then my opinion is that the case is from the 60's and he had it re-engraved to use this dial. I have seen sellers with older Gilt cases do this because they have money tied up in a watch they cannot find or afford to purchase a Gilt Dial for, so they have the case re-engraved to match whatever dial and movement they have.

Lets do some trouble shooting, this is fun..

If you pull out the crown while the watch is running does the second hand stop or continue moving. If it stops then the movement is earlier than the case and dial because it hacks when it should not hack.

Next, take a look inside the caseback. If it has a date then it isn't correct to this case or serial number. It should have no date and just say 1675.

Lets try and figure it out..

As Springer clearly stated, this is a perfectly fine, age-appropriate case.
But, I'm curious, Manny, you've actually heard of dealers re-engraving gilt-era cases to pass them off as ...NEWER cases?

[05carbondrz]

Very nice Case,You don't see them like this very often.

[wearl]

An opinions on the Hour, Minute and Second hands being original or replacements?

[Miami Manny]

I don't think anyone is claiming the case isn't genuine or that it has been refinished. It is a real Rolex 1675 case that is not refinished..

I think the only thing we may or may not disagree on is if a 5.2m case should have chamfers cut like these.

I am taking the position that the case is not correct for a 5.2m serial and without putting words in Springers mouth, it appears he feels it is.


I am saying that I have seen re-engraved cases like most collectors have and they have the numbers changed. Gilt cases to matte dial and vice versa.

[Fredrik]

A minor detail, a 1675 should have 580 end links, the 558 end links are for a DJ.

[Vincent65]

Looks pretty good to me, and the case chamfers scream original Rolex factory finish to my eye. Appears unpolished. Great dial and insert. I did linger a while on the hands before I saw others' comments. hard to be sure from these pics.

[Michael M.]

The case would appear to be correct and possibly unpolished. And yes, watches from the 5mil serial range did have bevels that were pronounced. Someone above said these bevels look like they are from a Gilt range 1675? Not correct, bevels from the Gilt era were much more pronounced.

[Miami Manny]

Ill tell you what I am seeing now upon further inspection...

The chamfers on the crown side appear to be different from those on the opposite side. Non Crown side looks period correct and thin and Corwn side looks thick and from the 60's.

Difficult to tell without better pics but, both sides do not appear to be the same cut.

EDIT: No I take it back. Both sides are the same cut and I stand behind my original assessment that they are too pronounced for a 5.2.

[droptopman]

This is why I love vintage watches. Much more to discuss. The more I look at this one, the more I like it. Still uncertain about the hands, but that would not be a deal stopper for me. Obviously depending on price....also if you did not like the hands, it is not that hard to find sets to match the dial.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Miami Manny

I am a critical watch buyer/seller and have become somewhat of a detective after so many years of doing this...

I think the Hour, Minute, Second hand are relumed. The GMT arrow appears original.
The case has me confused..

On 5.2m watches the chamfers were not this pronounced. If this was an earlier case I would say it looks right but, it doesnt look right to me on a 5.2m

Are you sure your Serial is correct? Can you post photos of the serial, model and inside of caseback?

The case looks fine to me for a 5.2 million serial number - the camera magnifies the lugs and the photos aren't really a proper perspective. 1960s lugs were more pronounced - the older they are the bigger they are!

[Jetkopite]

It looks like a nice watch to me ONLY thing that I am not sure on is the possibility of a relumed dial and maybe replacement hands?? Just abit suspicious on the the 12, 6 and 9 o clock lumes look a little puffy and not sharp.. Maybe its the plexi glass???

[Robbyvm]

i like this one a lot but the colour of the hands would bother me for ever....

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by Robbyvm

i like this one a lot but the colour of the hands would bother me for ever....

Want to thank everyone for the help and responses!!!
It's extremely difficult to pass this one.
The hands look different in some pictures, and not in others. Depends on lighting I think.
The case dial and clasp code (VC) all check out.

Will take a trip to view and buy this watch in the very near future.
Have been looking for a solid 1675 for some time now.

Thanks all !!