Stainless or Stainless/Gold GMT?

[dw.metro]

Hi Everyone,

I'm in the market for an 80's GMT. The question that I have is why are gold and stainless GMT's (16753) the same price as the all stainless Pepsi GMT's (16750)? The price when new must have been significantly higher for the 16753's. Wouldn't this be an easy decision to go with the stainless/gold 16753 GMT? Am I missing something?

Thanks

[Im Lauf der Zeit]

Yes, throughout the 1980s the two tone GMTs were roughly double the all steel ones: MSRP of $3100 vs. $1625 in 1986 for example. There's significantly less demand for the TT watches on the secondary market today and the relative prices reflect that, as you've found.

Why do you say going two tone is an easy decision, because it cost more originally?

The decision to make is which watch you prefer now, not the prices when new... More people opt for the SS models (even taking into account the greater supply) and that could continue--making it perhaps the better economic choice regardless of the original price structure... Or maybe the two tone watches are currently undervalued; who knows.

[njexpress]

I have been researching the snot out of the TT vs SS quandry.
You will see this discussed extensively in this forum.
SS cleearly seems preferrable over TT since:
1) Not sure because 007 wore it or people from Nat Geo and Discovery wore it, but - the average rolex consumer likes it, period. And let us face the facts, it is a cool looking
watch in the Sub / GMT avatar. It would not be a stretch to call them the most copied style in the world...
2) More folks tend to stick with the all gold, white gold or ss look than TT
3) Initial discounts from AD are defenitely tighter - Not sure if there is a cartel effect in place here, but, go back to step 1 :-D
4) For those who use this as a tool watch, they can't seem to consider TT tool enough,
You can check out my other post on depreciation assessment - Based on present market, depreceation is significantly steeper. If you end up selling your new TT asap vs new SS asap after you buy, you WILL take a hit...
Cheers.
--njexpress

[njexpress]

Originally Posted by njexpress

I have been researching the snot out of the TT vs SS quandry.
You will see this discussed extensively in this forum.
SS cleearly seems preferrable over TT since:
1) Not sure because 007 wore it or people from Nat Geo and Discovery wore it, but - the average rolex consumer likes it, period. And let us face the facts, it is a cool looking
watch in the Sub / GMT avatar. It would not be a stretch to call them the most copied style in the world...
2) More folks tend to stick with the all gold, white gold or ss look than TT
3) Initial discounts from AD are defenitely tighter - Not sure if there is a cartel effect in place here, but, go back to step 1 :-D
4) For those who use this as a tool watch, they can't seem to consider TT tool enough,
You can check out my other post on depreciation assessment - Based on present market, depreceation is significantly steeper. If you end up selling your new TT asap vs new SS asap after you buy, you WILL take a hit...
Cheers.
--njexpress

Speaking for myself, I am leaning towards the TT though... I just like the look of the Black GMT ii with the popping gold numbers. What I am yet to check out is how well it will blend with Navy suits and blue shirts...
Blacks, Browns and Khakhis will lock dead on, I am sure...
Cheers.
--njexpress

[aaamax]

Originally Posted by dw.metro

Hi Everyone,

I'm in the market for an 80's GMT. The question that I have is why are gold and stainless GMT's (16753) the same price as the all stainless Pepsi GMT's (16750)? The price when new must have been significantly higher for the 16753's. Wouldn't this be an easy decision to go with the stainless/gold 16753 GMT? Am I missing something?

Thanks

It's just a taste thing. If you dig the TT you're in luck. The SS version is less period/era specific.

[JimSnyder]

TT bracelets to replace are expensive. Sometimes a new TT bracelet can cost more then the value of the watch. This is one reason many older TT Datejust are less then a stainless version.

[SkyKing31]

2 Tone

[Tools]

There is no relationship to what a watch cost new and what it cost used.. Used watches (or anything else) are sold based on market prices; what a willing seller will pay a willing buyer.

People will pay more for a used Stainless model - for whatever reason, regardless of what a Stainless or TT model cost new..

Therefore, a TT model is a better "value" in that regard. But if you don't wear TT watches, the point is meaningless.

Personally, I think that the black TT GMT and black TT Sub (pre ceramics) are the best looking watches that Rolex ever produced.

[JustinK]

I would buy what you like the best regardless of the best deal or value.
If you decide on a TT GMT the earlier nipple dials are more collectible and better looking as well IMHO.

[Cortezthekiller]

TT for me... And Clint Eastwood

[dw.metro]

After some soul searching, I think I am a stainless guy. It is a little more understated and versatile than a tt.

[crowncollection]

I like two tone, but love stainless also in sports models, I am lucky enough to be able to own both.

[andromeda160]

I'd agree, having a TT as an only watch might get a bit flashy at times and the bracelets stretch a bit easier, as well as costing more to repair/replace. i'd love a TT watch again, but I'd have to have a SS as well

Mine were midsizes though.

[jfmiii]

if the 16803 TT Sub ever came with a nipple dial, I'd own one today. I still want a 16613 Bluesy but always hesitate bc i dont know if i could pull off the TT look without it just looking gaudy. if i was retired, had a nice boat, an even nicer tan, and lived in FL, I think that would be the watch for me. but as it stands, i am 30 in chicago with a mortgage and pasty white western european skin. a ss sub wears better for me at this point in my life.

[dw.metro]

Originally Posted by jfmiii

if the 16803 TT Sub ever came with a nipple dial, I'd own one today. I still want a 16613 Bluesy but always hesitate bc i dont know if i could pull off the TT look without it just looking gaudy. if i was retired, had a nice boat, an even nicer tan, and lived in FL, I think that would be the watch for me. but as it stands, i am 30 in chicago with a mortgage and pasty white western european skin. a ss sub wears better for me at this point in my life.

That is perfect, well said!