1675 GMT v 16710 GMT which is more collectable

[springer]

Originally Posted by greatgoo

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

That is not correct. GMT 16750s never came with sapphire crystals - none of them.

Also, you wrote , GMT 1675s were available from 1956 - which is news to me.

The accepted released date for the GMT 1675 is 1959.

[1watch]

Originally Posted by 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

Do you have any before and after pics? I hope you kept the original bracelet, as that has value to your piece by keeping all original and period correct parts together.

[springer]

I don't believe, at least in my lifetime, that the GMT II 16710 will ever be more collectable or in demand more than a GMT 1675 - but what do I know. Below are a trio of my 1675s.

[Wahlberg]

Originally Posted by 1675-David

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

new (service) hands?

[greatgoo]

Originally Posted by springer

That is not correct. GMT 16750s never came with sapphire crystals - none of them.

Also, you wrote , GMT 1675s were available from 1956 - which is news to me.

The accepted released date for the GMT 1675 is 1959.

The 1956 is typo. My bad. I looked at the website I got that information from and it says 1959.

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by springer

I don't believe, at least in my lifetime, that the GMT II 16710 will ever be more collectable or in demand more than a GMT 1675 - but what do I know. Below are a trio of my 1675s.

Three super, super watches.

[HDMW]

Originally Posted by 1watch

Do you have any before and after pics? I hope you kept the original bracelet, as that has value to your piece by keeping all original and period correct parts together.

Hello :
Yes I have the original bracelet.
The watch was in good shape before the service. Now it looks cleaner but more or less the same. I'll get some photographs taken.

Any thoughts on the long-E thing?

Regards : Hubert Wagner

[springer]

Originally Posted by HDMW

Hello :
Yes I have the original bracelet.
The watch was in good shape before the service. Now it looks cleaner but more or less the same. I'll get some photographs taken.

Any thoughts on the long-E thing?

Regards : Hubert Wagner

Are you referring to a Mark I GMT dial? If so, some use Long E to identify the Mark I GMT 1675 dials - don't ask me why, I think it is rather mundane myself too.

[zapokee]

My 1675 with long-E dial.

Was lucky enough to pick this up before prices went too silly. Full box and papers, purchased from original owner.

[GrandCanyon]

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.

When I had my 16750 serviced by Rolex in 2012 the original matte dial was replaced with a glossy dial. The watch was a little over 30 years old at the time.

[Andad]

You could try to find an untouched M 16710 3186?

[WeiLo]

I prefer 1675.

[WeiLo]

1675

[mineral]

Originally Posted by zapokee

My 1675 with long-E dial.

Was lucky enough to pick this up before prices went too silly. Full box and papers, purchased from original owner.

Beautiful example. Thanks for sharing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by Wahlberg

new (service) hands?

This has always been my assumption, it must be more than 10 years ago now I bought this watch (probably longer ) In the beginning my ambition was to find a nice matching original set but in the broader scheme of things what can start out as a priority quickly becomes forgotten. The hands don't glow at all so for now finding a new set will have to stay at number 435 on my to do list

[Yaz]

1675 !!!
I have a 16710 but I prefer 1675 by far !!!

[777Driver]

Hello All... I have a 1983 vintage 16750 that I purchased new at the British Military Exchange in Hong Kong. It of course has the Matte Dial and hands which are still on the watch since I refused to send it back to Rolex for the obvious reasons. This watch has been with me almost since the start of my professional flying career in 1979, and is one of the most beautiful and durable classic time pieces in my collection. This watch is aesthetically the same as the 1675 (the hand stack up is different) but with a superior higher beat movement and quick date set.

Recently refreshed by the "magicians" at LA Watchworks, this watch which I wore daily for 27 of the 36 years that I've owned it, still looks close to new! And yes, it's been polished.

The 16750 matte dial version is a great alternative to the hard to find 1675, looks the same but has better features, and at least for now, is less expensive.

In the twilight of my aviation career, my cockpit watch of choice is a now black dial steel Sky Dweller. And while I love the new reference Pepsi and Batman models on the Jubilee bracelet, the SD is a step above and gives the the Datejust aesthetics I have always loved plus a GMT and an annual calendar complication. On my 7-5/8' wrists its size and presence are perfect.

[777Driver]

Photos of my 1983 16750. Yes, I have all... Boxes, papers, four original brochures, warranty papers an wallet and the two hang tags.

[maverick]

The 1675 will always be more expensive, more desired than a 16710. 16710s were popular and there are a lot of them out there compared to the 1675.

[JasonBetts]

Originally Posted by 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

I have to agree. As i have both, well not exactly 1675 but 16750 matte dial and 16710, i found myself wearing 16710 more. I particularly like the patina that sort of gives the vintage feel in a more modern gmt master II.

If yours is tritium, i suggest you keep it hoping one day it’ll turn creamy.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sensui]

Finding a really nice 16710 is already a task.....finding a 1675 that's really nice is much harder. Both have their place in a collection/history of Rolex.

[wappinghigh]

16710

[1665fan]

1675

[iliketime]

id go 16710, just because vintage is a mine field. There is a lot of materials posted by members like Springer that helped me identify that going vintage gmt is beyond my depth of understanding. at this point even finding the other bezel inserts is enough for me.

[strafer_kid]

Both are superb watches - that said, I think choice depends upon what use, level of wear these are going to get. Whilst I would not 'abuse' any of my Rolexes, I would always be inclined to be a bit more cautious with my 1675 due to its age, build etc. 16710 or 16700 strikes me as the way to go?

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by strafer_kid

...I would always be inclined to be a bit more cautious with my 1675 due to its age, build etc.

Not cautious with mine. These things are MF tanks.

[mmaggi]

When I see the matte dials of a 1675 & 16750 I really wish Rolex would've never changed to the bright dials. For me the 1675 & 16750 (matte dials only) trumps the 16700, 16710 & 16760. Not even close.

[jaisonline]

So very. Many every 16710 I found are over polished. I can't imagine good conditioned 1675s.

Originally Posted by sensui

Finding a really nice 16710 is already a task.....finding a 1675 that's really nice is much harder. Both have their place in a collection/history of Rolex.

[1watch]

Very nice 1675’s are still out there and it will take some hunting and patience to find them. I acquired one last year in all original condition. You will have to pay for that top condition though, as there’s quite a gap for top condition vs over polished examples out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[servizio.970]

very beautifull. can I ask what year is it?