Rolex GMT 1675 thoughts?

[TheManny]

Hi,

I have been looking for a nice 1675 for a while now and stumbled upon this one. A MK1 dial one with nice lume with matching hands, crisp case (looks like it to me), original bracelet etc. I do not see any red flags about the authenticity, but would like to get other opinions as well. What do you people think? Sorry, but don’t have a better pic of the dial for now.
It is a 2.0mil serial watch, so year ~1969.

[TheManny]

And a couple more pictures that did not appear at first post..

[MrBlobby]

Looks good to me
https://gmtmaster1675.com/mark-1/

[Dan S]

Buy it.

[springer]

Original bracelet? What is the bracelet model number, clasp code and end links. The remainder of the watch seems nice based on the photos.

[swaini3]

Engravings look ok, insert is no good IMO, better pics of the dial needed to rule out a relume. 7 oclock lume has issues.

[springer]

Originally Posted by swaini3

Engravings look ok, insert is no good IMO, better pics of the dial needed to rule out a relume. 7 oclock lume has issues.

How about a courtesy to the OP and explain to him what the insert being "no good" means.

[TheManny]

Originally Posted by springer

Original bracelet? What is the bracelet model number, clasp code and end links. The remainder of the watch seems nice based on the photos.

Thanks for your reply Springer! Bracelet is 7836 with 358 endlinks. I am aware that it does have some stretch.
What are your opinions on the insert? Don’t have pictures of the backside unfortunately.

[TheManny]

Originally Posted by swaini3

Engravings look ok, insert is no good IMO, better pics of the dial needed to rule out a relume. 7 oclock lume has issues.

Thanks for the opinion. What does not look good to you on the insert?

[springer]

Originally Posted by TheManny

Thanks for your reply Springer! Bracelet is 7836 with 358 endlinks. I am aware that it does have some stretch.
What are your opinions on the insert? Don’t have pictures of the backside unfortunately.

The bracelet is later than the production of your watch by a couple of years - whether it matters or not to you. Also, I believe those end links are commonly found on the Datejust 20mm lugs and other similar models.

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by TheManny

Thanks for the opinion. What does not look good to you on the insert?

Aftermarket, does not look genuine. Ask for pictures from the back, without the bezel.

[TuRo]

Nice piece and agree with Springer ref date/el's.

It's because many dealers/collectors have 'redistributed' the end links and the full 7836 bracelet, (and much more commonly 6251h and 62510h now Jubillee back in vogue since the BLRO launch in 2018), from a cheapish Datejust/turn-o-graph onto pricier GMTs, and why more 1601/1603s are now going up for sale on a leather ;-)- no biggy though unless it bothers you that much.

[TheManny]

Greatly appreciate all the replies.
I do not mind the bracelet being a couple years off. As for the insert, do others agree that it is aftermarket? Is it possible to tell it without checking the backside?

[TuRo]

Also, In retrospect, I really think Swaini3 thoughts on the dial is defo worth pursuing.... the 7,4,11 don't look uniform/ round, and the 9 is thick. Might be ok, but needs careful checking.

[TheManny]

Some closer pictures of the dial and lume. Seems to have waffle like pattern on lume.

[ADINVA]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Also, In retrospect, I really think Swaini3 thoughts on the dial is defo worth pursuing.... the 7,4,11 don't look uniform/ round, and the 9 is thick. Might be ok, but needs careful checking.

Questions:
1) 1675 lume plots were handprinted. Wouldn't this be subject to inconsistency or imperfection?

2) 7, 4 and 11 plots: Could these inconsistencies due to the reflection or refraction of the crystal? Could someone confirm whether this crystal is genuine or aftermarket? As an amateur, I am assuming aftermarket crystal may result in distorted images. 7 is way too "distorted" than all other plots. If this is relumed, kind of difficult to suggest that the original owner would accept such "re-work". I am more inclined to guess that these inconsistencies are due to the crystal and angle.

My humble comments and questions. Cheers.

[springer]

Originally Posted by TheManny

Greatly appreciate all the replies.
I do not mind the bracelet being a couple years off. As for the insert, do others agree that it is aftermarket? Is it possible to tell it without checking the backside?

The insert appears correct and genuine. Natural fade and many wear marks.

[TimeToGo]

.
Hard to comment on the dial, pictures are not good enough (need high resolution of the plots) to tell for sure. There could be some lume misssing on the 11 o'clock and the distortion from the glass does not help to say conclusively.

I am with Springer on the insert, appears good from what I can see.

I know Swaini3 is well versed with inserts but maybe a shot of the back will help as well.

[timnik]

I have one from 69. Serial number beginning 206

looks good to me

[springer]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Also, In retrospect, I really think Swaini3 thoughts on the dial is defo worth pursuing.... the 7,4,11 don't look uniform/ round, and the 9 is thick. Might be ok, but needs careful checking.

I would agree. I noticed the inconsistencies in a couple markers but wrote it off to poor photos and crystal distortion.

There could definitely be some distortion going on - better photos that are much clearer and closer to the subject matter would help.

[alwayshere]

what are they asking price wise?

[TheManny]

Asking price is ~11.500€.

[TuRo]

Pesky Gmt hand in front of the 7 !

If period insert and dial and handset are good €11,500 euro / £9,800 is ok ish, and perhaps towards quite keen I’d say. I’m a big fan of correct caseback (not service) which at c 68/69 it has.

Get them to do a big macro shot of the dial with Gmt moved (but granted, dial does look a bit better in second set of photos you posted) and a few close ups of digits like 2 and 4 and 8 of the insert if they can’t remove it. A side on of the plexi be good to to see edge profile/any top curvature to establish if service or older/original, but that is not a biggy of course.

The mark 1 - c2mill / 69 vintage - shouldn’t lume up under led/uv when source taken away….but when the source is on it, it should reflect back a ghostly white mottled response.

[Pilot1985]

Originally Posted by TheManny

Asking price is ~11.500€.

IF you do not take it in the end please forward me the details as I might :)

[javier]

Originally Posted by TheManny

Asking price is ~11.500€.

It is a good price

[swaini3]

Here are some comparison pics. A genuine insert vs OP's insert vs the same replica sold online.



In the pic above, note the size and font of 0 is slimmer and smaller than the 2. The size of the digits also are a bit bigger/taller than on genuine inserts (and we're not talking about Super fat etc.)



In the pic above, you can see the diff in the 12, in OP's eg, font is ugly and looks like a I2, the curved top of the 2 is also different from genuine ones.
The spacing between the numbers eg 1 and 0 of 10 is not genuine like. (Service inserts are different).



In the pic above, you can compare the shape of the 2. Again, the size is larger than usual.

Regarding comments about aging, these can be done superficially to look real thus, not very helpful to judge an insert's authenticity nowadays.
and this guy's insert's are getting better with time ...

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by TheManny

Asking price is ~11.500€.

good price I agree.

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by swaini3

Here are some comparison pics. A genuine insert vs OP's insert vs the same replica sold online.

Outstanding and very thorough, thanks!

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by swaini3

Here are some comparison pics. A genuine insert vs OP's insert vs the same replica sold online.



In the pic above, note the size and font of 0 is slimmer and smaller than the 2. The size of the digits also are a bit bigger/taller than on genuine inserts (and we're not talking about Super fat etc.)



In the pic above, you can see the diff in the 12, in OP's eg, font is ugly and looks like a I2, the curved top of the 2 is also different from genuine ones.
The spacing between the numbers eg 1 and 0 of 10 is not genuine like. (Service inserts are different).



In the pic above, you can compare the shape of the 2. Again, the size is larger than usual.

Regarding comments about aging, these can be done superficially to look real thus, not very helpful to judge an insert's authenticity nowadays.
and this guy's insert's are getting better with time ...

Wow. Just wow. Good learning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alwayshere]

Well done Swaini3, goes to show the collective knowledge here is important. Thanks for sharing.