16750 vs 16710

[Buratata]

Hi all,

Currently, I'm in the market for a 5-digit GMT-Master. I've received similar offers on a 16750 and a 16710. Both are from the 80's, have a pepsi bezel, come without the b+p and are around $10k. The 16750 has a service dial, since it has an 8X serial, but still features the white gold surroundings on the hour markers. So visually, they're pretty much the same watch.

According to information I'm finding online, prices on the 16750 seem to be a bit higher (probably more so for watches with the matte dial, but anyhow), which I guess means the deal on the 16750 might be a bit better?

I'm not really interested in resale prices as I plan on never selling. I also don't really have a preference on quickset date vs. independently movable hour hand.

Which one would you choose and why?

Thanks guys.

[Dan S]

A service dial greatly reduces the value of the 16750, so the 16750 is probably not a better deal. However, value is so condition-depending that it's pointless for us to speculate without photos.

Overall, I would buy neither of those. If buying a 5-digit GMT, it would be a matte dial 16750 for me. There are countless threads on the general topic of comparing these different references if you search.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Dan S

A service dial greatly reduces the value of the 16750, so the 16750 is probably not a better deal. However, value is so condition-depending that it's pointless for us to speculate without photos.

Overall, I would buy neither of those. If buying a 5-digit GMT, it would be a matte dial 16750 for me. There are countless threads on the general topic of comparing these different references if you search.

Since there are no photos of these two watches posted here, I would recommend the GMT II 16710 if it is in nice condition over a "service" GMT 16750.

Posting photos and partial serial numbers would help out members here make appropriate comments on which watch might be the best value for you.

[springer]

A comparison of the two are in order since there are significant differces between the GMT 16750 and the GMT II 16710.

Check this thread here on the forum for a fairly comprehensive review of the pre-ceramic GMTs:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...86908#poststop

[rmagoo57]

I would take the 16710 from the early 2000's in the best condition possible, preferably unpolished.

[996marty]

Photos of any potential watches will help and I’m sure you’ll get some feedback on anything that looks slightly off

[swish77]

Watches are not like the stock market in regards to pricing. Every single watch is different, with the price/value based on specific condition and any accessories.

So, post photos. And if you’re in the market for a GMT, and a matte dial is not a requirement, why not also consider the 16700?

[Buratata]

Appreciate all the responses guys.

I do like the look of the matte dial watches, but to be fair, I like the gloss dials too. So there is no specific preference towards either. I guess in that case I'm saving a few K by not going for matte.

There is some misguiding information I read about the change of matte to gloss in the 16750, one source says starting at serial 9X (somewhere '86/'87), another says '84. Which could mean this one is not a service but original gloss.

I want to post pictures, but am not allowed to link to the uploads because of my post count. Any way to upload them to the forums?

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Buratata

. . .

There is some misguiding information I read about the change of matte to gloss in the 16750, one source says starting at serial 9X (somewhere '86/'87), another says '84. Which could mean this one is not a service but original gloss.

I want to post pictures, but am not allowed to link to the uploads because of my post count. Any way to upload them to the forums?

A service dial would likely be Luminova unless it was changed to some catastrophic episode earlier. Dials should last more than a decade before needing to be changed. Rolex never actually published any serial number period when they changed something, so there is carry over both ways from what you might read on the Internet.

As to posting photos. Anybody can attach an image using the paperclip icon and meeting the size requirements of the file being uploaded.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Buratata

Appreciate all the responses guys.

I do like the look of the matte dial watches, but to be fair, I like the gloss dials too. So there is no specific preference towards either. I guess in that case I'm saving a few K by not going for matte.

There is some misguiding information I read about the change of matte to gloss in the 16750, one source says starting at serial 9X (somewhere '86/'87), another says '84. Which could mean this one is not a service but original gloss.

I want to post pictures, but am not allowed to link to the uploads because of my post count. Any way to upload them to the forums?

You should site the source when quoting info out of the norm and not accepted by the collecting community. The gloss 16750 dials started several years before the 9xxxxxx serial numbers. I would stick with sources here in the reference library.

Did you bother to read the thread below that I placed for you in an earlier post of mine?

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...13820#poststop

[Buratata]

Yes - I have used the thread. So this is where I learned about the transition from matte to gloss in +- '84. There's a website called GMTMasterHistory which states that the transition happened approx '86/serial 9X.

Here are pictures of the two watches. The 16710, pictured with coke but genuine pepsi bezel included, serial R71X and the 16750, serial 86X.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Buratata

Yes - I have used the thread. So this is where I learned about the transition from matte to gloss in +- '84. There's a website called GMTMasterHistory which states that the transition happened approx '86/serial 9X.

Here are pictures of the two watches. The 16710, pictured with coke but genuine pepsi bezel included, serial R71X and the 16750, serial 86X.

The information at gmtmasterhistory.com regarding the glossy 16750 dial introduction is incorrect. This would not be the first web site on the internet that has incorrect information regarding the history of vintage Rolex watches.

[TimeLord2]

Originally Posted by Buratata

Appreciate all the responses guys.

I do like the look of the matte dial watches, but to be fair, I like the gloss dials too. So there is no specific preference towards either. I guess in that case I'm saving a few K by not going for matte.

There is some misguiding information I read about the change of matte to gloss in the 16750, one source says starting at serial 9X (somewhere '86/'87), another says '84. Which could mean this one is not a service but original gloss.

I want to post pictures, but am not allowed to link to the uploads because of my post count. Any way to upload them to the forums?

Use the "Go Advanced" button at the bottom of the page. Then use the paper clip icon to load pics. Pics have to be sized according to directions in the pop up window. Good luck!

[Jackie Daytona]

Depends on your wearing habits, but the 16710 is probably the better choice. A bit newer for daily wear and a lot of options and variants you can add to it and explore over time.

[996marty]

I think you’ll find more knowledge from the advice you will get from the people on here. It’s your choice if you choose to take that advice

[Buratata]

Originally Posted by 996marty

I think you’ll find more knowledge from the advice you will get from the people on here. It’s your choice if you choose to take that advice

I already learned a lot from the information on this forum and am for sure in people's advice on anything noteworthy based on the pictures of these specific two watches.

[Buratata]

Originally Posted by 996marty

I think you’ll find more knowledge from the advice you will get from the people on here. It’s your choice if you choose to take that advice

I already learned a lot from the information on this forum and am for sure in people's advice on anything noteworthy based on the pictures of these specific two watches.