Please help me with a 1675 GMT Master

[NickTruswell]

Merry Christmas Everyone,

So far all my Rolex purchases have been modern models but i'm really starting to get the urge to try out a vintage piece. I really like the look at the plastic crystal and matte dials. I'm most interested in a 1675 GMT Master from the 1970's era, nothing special or overly rare.

I've bought the Vintage Rolex Sports Models reference book and know what I'm looking for with regards dial, case and bracelet combo for that time period.

My question is around the bracelet. I see some fairly good looking watch heads but the bracelets are really stretched or looking a bit ropey. Would Rolex sell you a new "old" style bracelet???

Thanks for your help
Nick

[greekbum]

Nick they dont have any vintage bracelets leftover. There are many differnt bracelets that could have came on a 70's GMT.You have the Jubilees that came either flat oval, rolled, or d link and made in various parts of the world. The Rivet, also made in various parts of the world and are a bit different depending where they were made and then you have the oyster 78360 that rolex still sells. If you want a vintage jubilee,rivet or folded you may still find a very good used or restored one as there are many for sale.

[dddrees]

If only that were possible, unfortunately that is not the case. Rolex does not continue to make bracelets or other parts once a style is discontinued.

Basically your going to have to either attempt to have the existing bracelet repaired or stick to the used market and see if you can find something there.

However the good news is these do come up quite often and still can be found.

Here's a good site where you maybe able to locate one:

http://www.vintagerolexforum.com/

I'm sure more members with more experience in this area will chime in soon.

[Vincent65]

as said above - your best best bet is to restore a 7206 or find one in good nick, but that will likely be over a grand ($US).

If I were you, I'd wear it on a nice new (and correct) 78360

[NickTruswell]

Thanks guys, I think the bracelet i'd need would be an Oyster Lock bracelet with hollow links and end links. Was this also the same bracelet that was used on datejusts until relatively recently??

Would i be able to buy one of these new??? Sorry I don't know what reference number this would be.

Thanks agasin guys
Nick

[Vlad]

I'm not sure what you mean by Oyster Lock. If you're talking about a flip lock on the clasp, then it's a 93150 Submariner band. There are rumors that some GMTs came with that bracelet, but I have never seen a concrete proof of that. What you need is a 7206 or 7836 (folded). 78360 will also work, but in my opinion will always be a 'service' bracelet. You should be able to pick up a nice 78360 with correct end pieces (sorry, I don't remember if GMT came with 580 or 593s - someone please help...) for between $700 and $900 in a very nice condition.

[lhanddds]

The 78360 really never looked good to me with my 1675. I think the 7836 would but I decided to get a rivet. I paid more than I wanted to, but I like it

[financeman]

Originally Posted by lhanddds

The 78360 really never looked good to me with my 1675. I think the 7836 would but I decided to get a rivet. I paid more than I wanted to, but I like it

That looks nice. Amazing watch

[imono]

Here is a 1978 GMT 1675 with an upgraded bracelet from Rolex in 2000.
Bracelet is 78360 with 580 end links.

[swish77]

I too was looking for a new or old bracelet for my GMT 1675, and Rolex RSC in New York told me you can buy a new Oyster or Jubilee bracelet from them ONLY if you have an old bracelet on the watch to trade in. They won't sell it to you if you have only the watch head. Easier, and cheaper, to source one used. To me, bracelets are like tires on a vintage car. I don't mind swapping them out, or getting a new bracelet as long as it's correct for the model. Still, if you can find a period-correct rivet bracelet in good condition, with the matching date code, that's great too. Good luck!

[NickTruswell]

Originally Posted by imono

Here is a 1978 GMT 1675 with an upgraded bracelet from Rolex in 2000.
Bracelet is 78360 with 580 end links.

Yes, this is the bracelet I mean. Can these be purchased today from Rolex?

By the way if you ever want to sell that watch give me a call exactly what I'm looking for. It looks superb!

Thanks again all

[lhanddds]

Originally Posted by financeman

That looks nice. Amazing watch

Thanks Heath

[towernick]

My 1976 1675 GMT has 7836 with 280 end links, folded oyster, it's actually pretty comfortable to wear too.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Vlad

I'm not sure what you mean by Oyster Lock. If you're talking about a flip lock on the clasp, then it's a 93150 Submariner band. There are rumors that some GMTs came with that bracelet, but I have never seen a concrete proof of that. What you need is a 7206 or 7836 (folded). 78360 will also work, but in my opinion will always be a 'service' bracelet. You should be able to pick up a nice 78360 with correct end pieces (sorry, I don't remember if GMT came with 580 or 593s - someone please help...) for between $700 and $900 in a very nice condition.

Vlad, it is not a rumor that GMT's could have been originally fitted with a 93150 Submariner bracelet. It is true! I've posted photos of warranty papers that indicate in the style number that a particular GMT was fitted with a 93150 band.

If you have a GMT warranty paper, preferably the typed warranty paper as found in the USA, and it ends in 9315, it was fitted with a 93150 bracelet.

Also, the Oyster 78360 did not arrive until around 1980. The 93150 started production around 1974.

Below is a photo of the green sleeve containing the warranty paper for a 16760 GMT II. Notice the style number on the sleeve and the warranty paper both end in 9315.

[imono]

Indeed true.
From a 1986 Price List.

[joe100]

Joe's Rolex Authenticating Service: simply send all of your watches to me and I will authenticate them. Don't worry that I didn't ask for your return address or never log on here again....

But seriously, you could specify any of the 3 bracelets. I know a C130 captain, a major in the USAF who wears a fliplock over his flight suit.

[imono]

Originally Posted by imono

Indeed true.
From a 1986 Price List.

Again.

[Kingair]

Springer & Imono . . . thanks for your posts !

Learned again something today . . . ;-)

Merry Christmas

HAGOne

[Vlad]

Springer & Imono . . . yes, quickset GMTs were offered with a Sub bands. The question is: were 1675s ever offered with these bands (9315 or 93150). I have never seen any rolex catalogs that list that ... then again, I never really looked either.

[Warnsboy]

Nick:

I've got an oval jubilee, a C&I riveted oyster and a 78360 to go with my 1675. There's nothing like the tight fit of 580 end links snapping into place when I put on the 78360. My 78360 gets 90% of the wrist time while wearing my GMT!!!!

Pics:

C&I


Jubilee



78360

[springer]

Originally Posted by Vlad

Springer & Imono . . . yes, quickset GMTs were offered with a Sub bands. The question is: were 1675s ever offered with these bands (9315 or 93150). I have never seen any rolex catalogs that list that ... then again, I never really looked either.

The USA Master Catalog that I currently have does not list the 93150 band as an order option for the GMT 1675, just the Jubilee and the rivet Oyster bands.

I have not seen it documented anywhere that the 1675 GMT could be ordered with the 93150 band, but I do not have an extensive library to research it either. Maybe Tudorman can shed some additional light on this.

[Vincent65]

by the same token, my 1.70 1680 red sub came on a 7836 folded-link bracelet, but also with a patent pending ('PAT.PEND.') flip-lock clasp, so it appears that it worked the other way around as well.

[Vlad]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

by the same token, my 1.70 1680 red sub came on a 7836 folded-link bracelet, but also with a patent pending ('PAT.PEND.') flip-lock clasp, so it appears that it worked the other way around as well.

.... honestly, I would question the originality of that package - 7836 with a fliplock.... It would be more likely that the original links wore out (not uncomon for a 40+ year old watch) and someone kept the buckle and replaced the links with 7836 links...

[TempoKing]

Originally Posted by springer

Vlad, it is not a rumor that GMT's could have been originally fitted with a 93150 Submariner bracelet. It is true! I've posted photos of warranty papers that indicate in the style number that a particular GMT was fitted with a 93150 band.

If you have a GMT warranty paper, preferably the typed warranty paper as found in the USA, and it ends in 9315, it was fitted with a 93150 bracelet.

Also, the Oyster 78360 did not arrive until around 1980. The 93150 started production around 1974.

Below is a photo of the green sleeve containing the warranty paper for a 16760 GMT II. Notice the style number on the sleeve and the warranty paper both end in 9315.

I agree..

[RC2]

1978 rivet ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356465280.236147.jpg

Or 78360 from 1978

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356465311.495928.jpg

Rich

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by Vlad

.... honestly, I would question the originality of that package - 7836 with a fliplock.... It would be more likely that the original links wore out (not uncomon for a 40+ year old watch) and someone kept the buckle and replaced the links with 7836 links...

No, I doubt that very much, mate - there was no sign any of the links had been opened before. Add that to the impeccable condition throughout, the provenance of the watch, and the seller from whom I bought it (and their exceptionally experienced and informed opinion and reputation) and I'm happy it is a distinct possibility that it is original. As per this thread (and many others in many places on the net), things got mixed and matched quite a bit back in those days, both by Rolex and ADs. This bracelet showed no signs of any links being opened or removed, so it therefore appears unlikely the clasp was changed, as you assume (without even seeing it). BTW, the watch has not been worn for 40 years. 5 at most is the general consensus.

[pdoukas]

Per Marcello in 2009:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/20759...an+early+1680-

Not trying to get off topic but I think it is interesting.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

No, I doubt that very much, mate - there was no sign any of the links had been opened before. Add that to the impeccable condition throughout, the provenance of the watch, and the seller from whom I bought it (and their exceptionally experienced and informed opinion and reputation) and I'm happy it is a distinct possibility that it is original. As per this thread (and many others in many places on the net), things got mixed and matched quite a bit back in those days, both by Rolex and ADs. This bracelet showed no signs of any links being opened or removed, so it therefore appears unlikely the clasp was changed, as you assume (without even seeing it). BTW, the watch has not been worn for 40 years. 5 at most is the general consensus.

Vincent, I'll have to agree with Vlad, while your claims could be possible they are not probable. Any collector would want the correct bracelet and not one with mismatched parts - whether it was probable or not. Watchmakers have been repairing watches with mismatched parts for decades. Remember, back in the day, and even now, most wore their Rolex to tell time, not as a collector's piece. If the clasp was broke, they would go to a watchmaker and replace it with what they had, especially if it was hundreds less than new parts from Rolex. This is still quite common today.

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by springer

Vincent, I'll have to agree with Vlad, while your claims could be possible they are not probable. Any collector would want the correct bracelet and not one with mismatched parts - whether it was probable or not. Watchmakers have been repairing watches with mismatched parts for decades. Remember, back in the day, and even now, most wore their Rolex to tell time, not as a collector's piece. If the clasp was broke, they would go to a watchmaker and replace it with what they had, especially if it was hundreds less than new parts from Rolex. This is still quite common today.

You can choose to believe what you like, and so can I. There are hundreds of cases of so-called 'anomalies' straight from the factory, and that does not make them 'mis-matched' because it doesn't follow some little table that everyone swears by. 'Possible, not probable' is the key phrase you used here. How do you know how my watch left the factory? You don't, unless you made it. Of course I don't know either, but what I do know is what I see, and that is that none of the links showed any evidence whatsoever that they had been opened and re-closed again to change a clasp or links. Period. And I'm not alone in that view. And if you read my previous post again, you might glean that I said the watch had had very little wear in its long life, which hardly supports the distantly remote supposition - made by those who've never even seen it - that the bracelet or clasp had to have been worn out and changed, does it? This thing has never been serviced or polished, as far as we can tell. As with countless other well-documented cases of 'incorrect' parts being used at the time of production in the factory, so this could also have been the case with the bracelet on my 1680. Apart from the stamped numbers, the folded links look the same to me as the 9315 links, so they may well have just used what was available at that particular moment in time, completely unaware that, 43 years in the distant future, it might be debated on some electronic posting board by 'experts,' thousands of miles away.

As for your statement as to 'any collector would want the correct bracelet and not one with mismatched parts' - well, for a start, I don't think this was initially raised as an issue anyway, and secondly, I bought this one, and I consider myself quite discerning, or am I stupid? Am I 'any collector'?

[springer]

Vincent65..."As for your statement as to 'any collector would want the correct bracelet and not one with mismatched parts' - well, for a start, I don't think this was initially raised as an issue anyway, and secondly, I bought this one, and I consider myself quite discerning, or am I stupid? Am I 'any collector'?"

I can't answer your last question for you. Enjoy your watch!