Opinions on this 16750

[danku]

Hi all,

Thank you very much for members help on my previous post of choosing either a 5513 or 16750.

I recently came across this matte dial 16750, which seems to be in good condition. Comes with Japnense Guarantee paper and box (box not pictured). However I am most grateful for your views on the same:

Serial no: 7.2 mil However, paper said it was sold in 1989. I understand some watches may be manufactured but sold at a later date. But 7.2 mil indicates a
a 1982 period. Is this gap unusual?

Dial:In hindsight I should’ve asked the seller to move the hands but from what I can see should be a mk 2 dial, but happy to be corrected. Lume plots on markers and hands seem to be consistent. However, is it unusual that 7.2 mil serial number comes with a mk 2 dial?

Case: Is the case, in your view, polished or only slightly polished? The case seems to be consistent with normal wear?

Bezel: Is this an original bezel?

Bracelet: 93150 with 580 endlinks. The seller disclose right from the beginning that the clasp is not period correct though, as it comes with a R9 code. He said he can source the correct period clasp with no additional or minimal cost.

Price:Is USD 15k a reasonable price?

Thank you so much for all your help. Much appreciated.

The pics I took of the watch are as below:

[danku]

I am not sure if the pics I posted can be seen? I shared the links from Flickr but it didn’t show up…apologies in advance

[swish77]

No photos.

[danku]

Originally Posted by swish77

No photos.

Thanks swish, I managed to edit and post the pics finally.

[springer]

Looks like a nice example for an early 1980s GMT 16750. As far as the watch being from 1982 and sold new during 1989 would only only be speculation. There could be a few reasons why this occurred which , again, would be speculation on my part.

The bezel inserts changed somewhat during the early 1980s going from the red back version to the blue back version. The number fonts also changed during this period most notably identified by the number 8 which went from a somewhat oval look to a more rounded look. Yours appears to be the later version, but, based on when Rolex released this watch and shipped it to the dealer, regardless of the serial number, it could have been a late production and arrival at the dealership and have come with the later insert. I have seen other watches with early serial numbers which were sold many years later than the serial number would indicate, so it would be hard to judge what exactly occurred with this watch being sold many years after the known production year for this model.

The condition of the watch appears to have been polished in the past but still remains in very good condition. I do not see any issues with the dial and hands and they both seem to match very well.

Regarding the purchase price, it seems like a fair price for a GMT 16750 in this condition.

[0nly5iv3Digits]

Agree with JP. Overall quite a nice example, and the case is well-preserved. It may require a service, however, as that date-wheel is clearly off-center - my only concern on the basis of these images. Worth investigating by getting "hands" on with it again and checking functionality of the quickset change at 00:00 hrs. Probably just needs lubrication.

[danku]

Originally Posted by springer

Looks like a nice example for an early 1980s GMT 16750. As far as the watch being from 1982 and sold new during 1989 would only only be speculation. There could be a few reasons why this occurred which , again, would be speculation on my part.

The bezel inserts changed somewhat during the early 1980s going from the red back version to the blue back version. The number fonts also changed during this period most notably identified by the number 8 which went from a somewhat oval look to a more rounded look. Yours appears to be the later version, but, based on when Rolex released this watch and shipped it to the dealer, regardless of the serial number, it could have been a late production and arrival at the dealership and have come with the later insert. I have seen other watches with early serial numbers which were sold many years later than the serial number would indicate, so it would be hard to judge what exactly occurred with this watch being sold many years after the known production year for this model.

The condition of the watch appears to have been polished in the past but still remains in very good condition. I do not see any issues with the dial and hands and they both seem to match very well.

Regarding the purchase price, it seems like a fair price for a GMT 16750 in this condition.

Thank you Springer for the quick and helpful response, especially on the bezel. I am wondering the below:

1. Given that there are multiple reasons/speculations as to why there is a gap between manufacturing and date of what is indicated on the paper - is this a concern for collectors (for e.g. should one look for a sample that is closer in gap between manufacture and sale for peace of mind), or does it not really matter in this case and not affect the price/collectability?

2. Dial: I hope I'm correct in assessing that this is a "Mk. 2" variant of the Matte Dial. If so, is it also similar to the speculation on bezel, i.e., there may be a number of reasons why a 7.2 mil serial will have a Mk.2 dial? If so, same as point. 1, does it affect the price/collectability?

3. Case: is there a legitimate pic of an unpolished case that I can compare this by? The reason I ask is because whilst I have come across many pics on the internet that claim their sample is "unpolished", it may be possible that the seller/dealer posted such pic may not be entirely honest, and I believe the members here more.

Originally Posted by 0nly5iv3Digits

Agree with JP. Overall quite a nice example, and the case is well-preserved. It may require a service, however, as that date-wheel is clearly off-center - my only concern on the basis of these images. Worth investigating by getting "hands" on with it again and checking functionality of the quickset change at 00:00 hrs. Probably just needs lubrication.

Thank you for your comment, much appreciated. On the quick set, I believe I took the photo after I fiddled the crown a bit when I was given the opportunity to handle the watch - but thanks for the tip!