GMT Advice. 1675 or 16710 for under £10k

[tommm]

Hi all

So I’m looking at GMTs. Specifically 1675 or 16710. My budget isn’t massive so I’m trying to find the best I can for £10k.

I’ve been to a few stores, tried a few on here in London and I think I prefer the 1675. I also love the later reference too. I know the differences in movement and have done some research, but my question is, is it a realistic option to get a 1675 in my budget or would I be cutting corners and be better off going for the later reference which offers a little more bang for buck?

Any pointers also GMT masters?

[Tom1675]

Any 1675 for under 10k will likely be too compromised to be desirable and eventually you'll regret your purchase and most likely not be able to sell for what you paid.

Take your time on the newer reference and the right deal could be out there but I highly suggest you try to stretch your budget.

[tommm]

What sort of numbers are we talking?

[Swearengen]

You are probaably not too far off the price of a reasonable 16710. I suspect a £10k 1675 would be a bit too much of an adventure fo your first vintage Rolex.

[Dan S]

10k GBP is $13k USD, which isn't too far away from getting a matte 1675 if you can tolerate some minor flaws. Personally, I would suggest focusing on an attractive dial, and maybe live with some polishing, a replacement bezel-insert/bracelet, etc.

[tommm]

I don’t mind flaws and in fact the more used the better as far as I’m concerned. I guess as long as the hands match the dial and the case isn’t too over polished I’m good. I’m not worried about original bracelet cos I live close to Rolex St James so can pick one up at some point and would want both jubilee and oyster. Same goes for bezel insert.

[0nly5iv3Digits]

Buy what you love. For me it’s the 16710.

[tommm]

These two are in the price range, anything here I should be aware of?





From what I can see the first has replacement hands. Any other standout probs?

Other than that, I was also considering this 16710 which is about £9k

[shammad10]

That 1675 is so over polished that the springbar is poking through on the 2 o'clock lug. I didn't even look beyond that as I wouldn't go near it.

You don't want the CHEAPEST watch you can buy. Best get the best example of the best reference you can get for your money. So if that means getting a great 16710 for the £10k that's better than getting a really shoddy 1675.

[996marty]

For that sort of money I think you can rule out the 1675. Miltons have got a nice root beer that falls in your price range. Watches of Henley st have a 16710 that’s in your budget

[TimeToGo]

.
Can you provide other information about the 1675.
Shows like a service dial.

This way you can learn about what you are looking at.

[joe100]

What about a 16700? Split the difference

[tommm]

Originally Posted by 996marty

For that sort of money I think you can rule out the 1675. Miltons have got a nice root beer that falls in your price range. Watches of Henley st have a 16710 that’s in your budget

Thanks for that. The one at Henley St looks lovely

[tommm]

Originally Posted by joe100

What about a 16700? Split the difference

It’s an option, the only reasons I didn’t go for that is that I thought if you’re getting the looks of the 16710 you may as well get the benefits of the newer movement.

[javier]

I love love love the 1675. Go for it !!!

[Pete_mcC]

I would think about a few things:

-Will you be wearing this in rotation? If so, remember that the 1675 is not quickset so you will need to wind through 24hrs to get to the right day. It’s a pain and I find myself wearing my 1655 and 1675 only on days where the date is close to the one on the watch so I don’t have to wind through 20 days. It’s. Ore annoying than you think.
-Will you be using this for travel, if so remember that the 1675 doesn’t have an independent second hour hand, it’s just a 24hr hand that you read against the bezel. The 16710 has an independent hour hand so you can set it to local/home time and have a third time zone on the bezel.

I have both and for a practical watch, the 16710 wins hands down. For looks, the 1675 wins but you’ll need the money to get the looks. £10k won’t get you a good one from a dealer, it may get you one from eBay or an auction but that comes with a lot of risk if you’re not an expert with the watch.

[Dan S]

To clarify my previous comments, you will certainly not find a decent 1675 from a prominent website or retailer in your budget. I didn't realize you were going to start posting links from that type of seller. Forget it, I'm not even going to bother commenting on the watches you posted.

You will need to network with collectors (perhaps locally) and hunt at obscure auction houses. It will require patience, but if you educate yourself and hunt patiently, I would bet that you could find something wearable within a year.

[Phrank]

Another idea might be a Rolex GMT Master 16700 - last of the GMT Masters, sapphire crystal, marker surrounds, lug holes, and if I recall correctly, one of the slimmest cases. Rolex 3175 caliber movement with hacking and quickset date.

Mine gets lots of wrist time....

edited to add: Joe100 posted above suggesting a 16700 as well.

[tommm]

Originally Posted by Dan S

To clarify my previous comments, you will certainly not find a decent 1675 from a prominent website or retailer in your budget. I didn't realize you were going to start posting links from that type of seller. Forget it, I'm not even going to bother commenting on the watches you posted.

You will need to network with collectors (perhaps locally) and hunt at obscure auction houses. It will require patience, but if you educate yourself and hunt patiently, I would bet that you could find something wearable within a year.

Thanks

So yeah by the looks of things a 1675 is probably not the best choice. I am not an expert so yeah I am working with dealers rather than chancing eBay or auctions etc.

I know it may come across annoying but I’m just asking you guys for your opinions

I think right now a 16710 is the right choice

[996marty]

The 16710 is a fantastic reference

[cajuntiger]

Originally Posted by shammad10

That 1675 is so over polished that the springbar is poking through on the 2 o'clock lug. I didn't even look beyond that as I wouldn't go near it.

not sure where you see the spring bar poking thru the lug, but keep in mind not all spring bars are equal...so unless you installed it yourself and know which length bar you installed, this is a really bad way to judge lugs.

[shammad10]

Originally Posted by cajuntiger

not sure where you see the spring bar poking thru the lug, but keep in mind not all spring bars are equal...so unless you installed it yourself and know which length bar you installed, this is a really bad way to judge lugs.

This is the watch he’s posted. It’s awful. The top left lug is clearly polished. Crown guards are very very soft too.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[0nly5iv3Digits]

Good Lord... as others have mentioned... the 1675 is quite badly polished... notice the 6 O-clock endlink fitment... horrendous!

The 16710 on the other hand looks crispy. I'd be all over that ;)

[indianmachine]

16750 could be another good option. Come in either matte or glossy dials (latter more in the suggested price range).

[rootbeer7]

OP £10k, $13k, €12.5 (approx) is not an unreasonable budget. It might allow you to look further afield and use the currency in lieu of import taxes etc.
You aren’t going to find a full set Mk1, but you may find a rather lovely matte dial perfect for daily use. As mentioned the one above is quite polished, but is it that bad? On a high-res image yes, but on the wrist at the right money?
They are out there at budget, I’ve seen them. Keep looking and keep posting here.

[TuRo]

You might just snaffle a '760 Sophie Loren for £10k - rarest of the W.g.s (as they were overpriced i.e. c 1/3 more than the '700 it sold alongside), but getting on for sea-dweller case thickness of course.

A '750 matte probably going to be a bit more than that.

Ps that 1675 is a service dial (and hands I think) piece as ttg says. In fact if I recall from one I had, it's a so-called tritinova version from c 2000-2006.

These are T25 dials with Luminova (they lume up bluey/green).

They had Luminova as Rolex agreed to not use radioactive tritium after 2000 as did most other manufacturers.

I'm not that down on the case of the 1675 it's av. condition imho and the springbar is just too long. The dial/hands though wipes 1/3 off it's value in my book.

They were put into service stock until they ran out about 2006/7. The mainly post-2007 later 'swiss' are mostly superluminova and have a very feint light blue hue in daylight and of course are even more bluey (green) under UV. The are imho the least appealing 1675 service dials.

Personally, feel the '710 is great, but is my least fave of the GMT/GMT II's, especially the later no lug-hole, flip-lock, s.e.l variety.

Ps Little fun fact - Panerai were last to do tritinova, and they did it a production piece not service dial, in their PAM 285 Ltd Edition of 2009 ;-)

[tommm]

Some really useful opinions here and great knowledge as always!

[springer]

Below is a thread that I put together a few years ago comparing the various GMT and GMT II models. Maybe this will shed some light on some of your concerns.

https://gmtforum.com/viewtopic.php?f...4f2292de3b1599

[tommm]

Some really useful opinions here and great knowledge as always!

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by TuRo

You might just snaffle a '760 Sophie Loren for £10k - rarest of the W.g.s (as they were overpriced i.e. c 1/3 more than the '700 it sold alongside), but getting on for sea-dweller case thickness of course.

A '750 matte probably going to be a bit more than that.

Ps that 1675 is a service dial (and hands I think) piece as ttg says. In fact if I recall from one I had, it's a so-called tritinova version from c 2000-2006.

These are T25 dials with Luminova (they lume up bluey/green).

They had Luminova as Rolex agreed to not use radioactive tritium after 2000 as did most other manufacturers.

I'm not that down on the case of the 1675 it's av. condition imho and the springbar is just too long. The dial/hands though wipes 1/3 off it's value in my book.

They were put into service stock until they ran out about 2006/7. The mainly post-2007 later 'swiss' are mostly superluminova and have a very feint light blue hue in daylight and of course are even more bluey (green) under UV. The are imho the least appealing 1675 service dials.

Personally, feel the '710 is great, but is my least fave of the GMT/GMT II's, especially the later no lug-hole, flip-lock, s.e.l variety.

Ps Little fun fact - Panerai were last to do tritinova, and they did it a production piece not service dial, in their PAM 285 Ltd Edition of 2009 ;-)

Sorry for my typo, The 16750 ran alongside the 16760 not the 16700 of course, and it was these two had that getting on for 1/3 cost differential.

To illustrate Rolex Catalogue 1985 - 16750 £698 and 16760 was £919. Anyone interested while I have the catalogue out a 16800 was more at £849 ( surprising as gmts been more last few decades I think) and the thing I'd forgotten the Daytona 6363/6265 a mere £725 ! that's cheaper than a sub and the GMT II.....oh for a time machine !!

jP's guide is excellent of course