Two 1675's, which one would you choose ?

[robbret]

Anyone care to comment on the differences, bezels, dials, hands on these two pieces ?
I actually prefer the older one.

ca 1970 on Jubilee bracelet:



ca 1968 on Oyster bracelet:

[Vincent65]

The 1970 looks to be in better shape (dial and hands). I'd take that one, of those two.

[Cc1966]

I am partial to the 1970 GMT on the jubilee. No corrosion on hands and makes a nice presentation.

[MitchSteel]

1970 condition, condition, condition

[miteemike3]

Going against the grain, I actually like the 1968 on the oyster a bit more.. I think it has more character to it. The mis-matched hands and dial on the 1970 would probably drive me nuts in the end. Although a Jubilee on the 1968 would be perfect

[CrownMe]

I would pick the 1970 if I was forced. But personally keep looking. Enjoy the hunt

[pdoukas]

The 68 has the wrong dial. Should be a long E MK1


Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse spelling, punctuation, and brevity.

[Beaumont Miller II]

First one is a mk1 dial with hands that don't match the dial well. In addition to mismatched hands the dial has issues.

Second is a mk2 dial in a case, which if really from '68, would not be correct. In addition the 2:00 lume marker on the second watch is missing half the tritium, and it appears the hour hand may have been repaired.


Of the two the first is nicer; however, I would keep looking.

[silversurfer96790]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

First one is a mk1 dial with hands that don't match the dial well. In addition to mismatched hands the dial has issues.

Second is a mk2 dial in a case, which if really from '68, would not be correct. In addition the 2:00 lume marker on the second watch is missing half the tritium, and it appears the hour hand may have been repaired.


Of the two the first is nicer; however, I would keep looking.

Agree, you can find better. Enjoy the hunt.

[Beef]

Beaumont should charge for appraisals. I have to say, I completely agree with his assessment. Keep looking. Nice 1675s are not prohibitively expensive and pop up all the time in "For Sale" thread.

[springer]

Originally Posted by silversurfer96790

Agree, you can find better. Enjoy the hunt.

You might be able to find better, but from my experience, most don't want to pay for the better watch.


So back to the real world......if some of you guys had your way, we would all be wearing vintage, NOS, unobtainable watches that you all seem to find somewhere, somehow. There is nothing wrong with either watch except that they are over 40-years-old and one might have the incorrect and it might not. If it is incorrect it is no deal breaker for me. I have no horse in this race and I'll pass on my assessment without having a clue on the price which really determines what a watch is worth - not whether one of the hands are cracked!!!

[Beaumont Miller II]

Originally Posted by springer

You might be able to find better, but from my experience, most don't want to pay for the better watch.


So back to the real world......if some of you guys had your way, we would all be wearing vintage, NOS, unobtainable watches that you all seem to find somewhere, somehow. There is nothing wrong with either watch except that they are over 40-years-old and one might have the incorrect and it might not. If it is incorrect it is no deal breaker for me. I have no horse in this race and I'll pass on my assessment without having a clue on the price which really determines what a watch is worth - not whether one of the hands are cracked!!!

John I have no idea what the wholesale/retail value is for a 1675 case from '68, according to the OP, with perhaps a later dial that is missing half the tritium on the 2:00 hour marker, and an hour hand that looks like its been repaired. However, last time I checked what a watch is worth to some degree is in part determined by condition, rarity, demand.

I don't know this dollar value because I'm not a dealer. I'm a collector, and as such my guidance is based on the knowledge that I have gained enjoying this hobby. If the OP wants to buy a watch with a damaged dial, there are plenty of them out there...many in their original/period correct cases.

Out of curiosity, it might be helpful for you to give us an idea how you would value the watch wholesale and resale...figure the bracelet as not original to the watch. Perhaps this would give the OP an idea of whether the watch as priced by the seller represents a good value.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

John I have no idea what the wholesale/retail value is for a 1675 case from '68, according to the OP, with perhaps a later dial that is missing half the tritium on the 2:00 hour marker, and an hour hand that looks like its been repaired. However, last time I checked what a watch is worth to some degree is in part determined by condition, rarity, demand.

I don't know this dollar value because I'm not a dealer. I'm a collector, and as such my guidance is based on the knowledge that I have gained enjoying this hobby. If the OP wants to buy a watch with a damaged dial, there are plenty of them out there...many in their original/period correct cases.

Out of curiosity, it might be helpful to give us an idea how you would value the watch wholesale and resale...figure the bracelet as not original to the watch. Perhaps this would give the OP an idea of whether the watch as priced by the seller represents a good value.

The dial on the one GMT, whether correct or not, is probably on the cusp of its production era. Both Mark I and Mark II 1675 dials are pretty much valued the same if you had to source one on the secondary market. If the watch is "1968" based on a serial number dating chart, the Mark II dial could very well be correct since the case back would probably read 1970 or 1971.

Hands are a wear item and very inexpensive to repair or replace. The dial lume could also be repaired by a competent watchmaker. It would not be a deal breaker for me. Any defects should be factored in the price to determine a value as you noted in your post.

One thing that everyone failed to mention is the bezel insert on each watch. The 1970 has a service replacement insert and the 1968 appears to have a very nice, original fat font insert which would definitely make it a dark horse favorite for me. (Original fat font inserts are getting rather pricey.)

I prefer original bracelets, but GMTs, like red Subs and other vintage watches, are often found with replacement bracelets. My experience indicates whether a bracelet is original or a replacement, condition dictates the value of the bracelet and prices on the secondary market.

Based on one photo of each watch, it would not be possible for me to price them properly without additional information and photos. I will say this about the 1675 GMTs, and generally speaking, nice quality ones are selling well and guys still looking for top quality, original pieces in the $5,000 - $5,500 price range will be disappointed at what they find. Every now-and-then I place one of my GMTs up for sale and you'd be amazed at some of the "crazy" offers I receive.

To be fair, the gentleman who originated this thread should provide more information to properly evaluate either watch - to include the prices and serial numbers. If, for example, the 1968 GMT is priced at $4,000 and the 1970 is priced at $5,000 and the cases, lugs and most other details are the same for both watches except for the hands/dial defects, and assuming the dials are correct for each watch, I know which one I'm buying. If priced the same, naturally I'd go with the nicer watch.

[anilzat]

Me likes the newer one.

[JerimiahLee]

I am not a huge fan of Jubilee bracelets but love them on GMT's. I would personally go for the first!

[Michael M.]

I would pass on both and continue the search for a better, more original specimen.

[watchcrank]

From a perspective of dealing with a lot of novice vintage buyers I think you have to be aware not everyone has experience with various watchmakers with varied talents and the ability to pick and choose how and why one is needed over another. Many want the "museum" piece and can afford to purchase it while others must work their way into the market while learning of its pitfalls. As it is some like a 40 year old watch to look NOS while others are content to view the flaws as part of life (as I do while looking in the mirror :-) I choose not to disparage either but to appreciate both as a truly great hobby with many personalities present. Good luck to the OP and use the shared knowledge on this fine forum. M

[robbret]

Hi guys,
Thank you all for your meaningful responses and for not flaming me for the millionth “which one should I choose” post in this forum. I’m actually not intending on buying either of these watches because my wallet is still recovering from a 5513 a couple weeks ago
I am however reading-up and gathering intelligence that will help me pull the trigger on a 1675 further down the line, when the time is ripe.
I don’t collect vintage watches for the sake of building a collection, nor for their likely future value, I basically buy vintage watches with my heart. I like to handle (fondle ?) a piece and if it shows its character & history, I like it. Even if it appears somewhat overpriced. I’m not really into pixel-peeping and buying online at these price levels. As a fellow forum member recently put it “in the vintage Rolex world online, real money seems to easily become Monopoly money”.
Now to the point: I appears I misled you by accidentally switching the dates in my first post, so those of you who identified the dials as being from the wrong period, congratulations on proving your knowledge, you rock!
The watch on the jubilee is a 2.0M serial from ca 1968.
The watch on the oyster is a 2.87M serial from 1970.
Cheers,
Tom

[watchcrank]

Well spoken, sounds like you may be a real vintage guy :-) Good luck in the search. M