Rolex 16750 - Matte dial... or?

[Maggi]

Hello guys!

First of all, thanks for providing all the great insights that you do. It's truly inspiring to be an active reader of this forum.

Now, over to my question:

I recently bought an NOS Rolex 16750 GMT-Master with an 8,8-mill serial. The watch was complete with box and papers, had apparently never been used with razor sharp bevels, no hairlines, in immaculate condition with a story to it that is very credible. One of the main drivers for the purchase, was the fantastic matte dial on the watch, with great patina matching the hands.

However, upon researching somewhat more - after the purchase - I've come across a few articles stating that the matte dial ended around the 8,4-mill serial. But - I've also seen on i.e. GMTmasterhistory - stating that the glossy dial started around 9-mill serial. I just want piece of mind, knowing that the matte dial is appropriate for my watch (I have no reason not to believe so, but just want to make sure).

Can any of you - knowledgeable members - please give me some peace on this matter? :)

All the best, and in advance; - thanks!

[springer]

The matte and glossy dial era for these are interesting. As far as the glossy dials go, I've owned two or three of the early ones with an 8.2 million serial number. I've also seen others with the 8.2 million serial number with the glossy dial. While it is a tad bit early for glossy dials, I have no reason to doubt they were original glossy dial GMT 16750s.

As far as 8.8 million matte dial GMTs go, I've never seen one nor heard of this before. I haven't heard your story yet but I'm sure it is an interesting one at that.

If you have some time, let's hear the background on this anomaly.

[alwayshere]

agree would be great to know the history.

The hands from the bottom pic look potentially service hands. I recall the original hands on these 16750 tend to darken. Yours look lighten than the dial? Could be the angle.

Havent seen 8.8 million serial with matte dial unless retrospectively added.... worth getting to the bottom of, i'm assuming it wasn''t cheap either.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

The hands from the bottom pic look potentially service hands.

I had the same thought. Would be good to see a UV pic.

[Maggi]

Thanks for the replies!

The story is that the watch was purchased NOS in 1997 and was stored away until now. It’s originally from Asia.

It looks fantastic, was truly expensive - but I’m keen on ensuring that everything is right as this is a keeper.

I’ve checked the site GMTMasterhistory .com that states that the matte was switched around 9-mill serial, but that sounds rather late based on your replies. Are you familiar with that site?

[SignotheTimes]

Here is an example of an early glossy dial (8.2 million serial number).

[Maggi]

Could it have been that the factory used some layover parts? I’ve heard some examples of this happening…

[1665fan]

Originally Posted by SignotheTimes

Here is an example of an early glossy dial (8.2 million serial number).

Now that’s a nice spider!

[springer]

Originally Posted by Maggi

Could it have been that the factory used some layover parts? I’ve heard some examples of this happening…

Without speculating, how about enlightening us with the background story on your watch. Thanks in advance.

[swaini3]

Looks like a nice example. Just enjoy it.

[Wahlberg]

Bought NOS in 1997, never used but has been serviced and has new hands?

[Chester01]

NOS is a marketing term and means many things to many people. I also highly doubt any 5 digit references are NOS. That was the era when these things were tools and not investments.

[alwayshere]

Xeramics on VRF brought up a good observation which is the base of the triangle of the GMT hand is thicker than the two sides...

I'm starting to think the hand set isn't genuine at all.

Again, the matte dial for this serial range is particularly suspicious... the latest I have seen has been 8.6 but even that had some questions on it. Potentially offsetting common wisdom is the fact the serial 8.0-8.6 serial range was only over the course of a year so who knows... maybe there were some very late additions with spare matte dials lying around but I think its low to very low probability.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Wahlberg

Bought NOS in 1997, never used but has been serviced and has new hands?

Sorry, but that case appears to have been polished in the past so it wouldn't be NOS.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by Chester01

NOS is a marketing term and means many things to many people. I also highly doubt any 5 digit references are NOS. That was the era when these things were tools and not investments.

https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/lujq

It’s since been sold but they certainly exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[springer]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

Xeramics on VRF brought up a good observation which is the base of the triangle of the GMT hand is thicker than the two sides...

I'm starting to think the hand set isn't genuine at all.

Again, the matte dial for this serial range is particularly suspicious... the latest I have seen has been 8.6 but even that had some questions on it. Potentially offsetting common wisdom is the fact the serial 8.0-8.6 serial range was only over the course of a year so who knows... maybe there were some very late additions with spare matte dials lying around but I think its low to very low probability.

Just for my clarification, your comment regarding 8.0-8.6 serial range was only over the course of a year or so who knows... means that this serial number range is for one year of production?

My experience indicates serial numbers ranging from 8.0 to 8.6 would encompass approximately four years of production.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by springer

Just for my clarification, your comment regarding 8.0-8.6 serial range was only over the course of a year or so who knows... means that this serial number range is for one year of production?

My experience indicates serial numbers ranging from 8.0 to 8.6 would encompass approximately four years of production.

I'm not sure thats right Springer. Looking at both HQMilton and Bobswatch serial range, it can't be over four years...

I have looked at most of the HQMilton 16750 examples and pretty much 1984 was the start of the 8.0 serial and it more or less ended in 1985.

In other words, I have yet to see a 8.0 serial dating to 1981/1982/1983. Those are all 6 million to 7 million serials so I can't see how your 4 years of production is right?

Bobswatch serial guidance is similar to the above observation.

[SignotheTimes]

I find interesting guesses. I did a lot of research on the subject of serial numbers. The areas around 8.2 mil. I would have classified around 1983. My reference 16750 has an early glossy dial without the addition of "date". However, the original clasp is dated I6 (June 1984). Thus the mentioned serial number range could also fall into the year 1984 ...

[Maggi]

Thanks for all the engagement! That’s highly appreciated.

Allow me to clarify; I recently bought the watch from a collector who bought the watch in 1997 from another seller who he knew. It’s been in his possession since and has been kept in this condition. It’s originally from Hong Kong and the paperwork is stamped accordingly. That’s the story, I’m not an expert on this matter, that’s why I’ve reached out to the community to get some answers.

The watch was described - when purchased and in the ad - as «Never used, unpolished GMT-Master 16750. Never serviced, never used». I trusted this, but please do tell if I should follow up with the seller - who was a nice guy - or if I should just enjoy the watch. Naturally, I paid top dollar to acquire this as I had been looking for this watch a long time. I have no more interest in this than that; and do not feel the need to rationalize for myself one way or another.

Again, thanks!

[Wahlberg]

Originally Posted by Maggi

I trusted this, but please do tell if I should follow up with the seller - who was a nice guy - or if I should just enjoy the watch. Naturally, I paid top dollar to acquire this as I had been looking for this watch a long time. I have no more interest in this than that; and do not feel the need to rationalize for myself one way or another.

All depends how much you paid for it, if you paid 20k euro for it I would go back.

[alwayshere]

Originally Posted by SignotheTimes

I find interesting guesses. I did a lot of research on the subject of serial numbers. The areas around 8.2 mil. I would have classified around 1983. My reference 16750 has an early glossy dial without the addition of "date". However, the original clasp is dated I6 (June 1984). Thus the mentioned serial number range could also fall into the year 1984 ...

I also double / tripled checked the serial number ranges post Springer's comment and out of many of the common sites on Rolex serials, they all seem to suggest the same conclusion (maybe they are all quoting eachother?) and its:

1984: 8.0 million
1985: 8.6 million

Unless someone disputes these sources, your Rolex would fall into 1984.

My 16750 is 1984 serial but has a 1982 clasp code... beats me...

[PVR]

I will dispute your serial ranges as I have compiled my own personal chart, unlike BOBS which is completely wrong, and I have the following:


8.0 million serial production is towards the middle of 1983
8.6 million serial production is towards the middle of 1984

When these watches actually got sold or the date of sale on their certificates is another matter, but the actual production dates I stated are what I feel are correct.

Springer is INCORRECT to suggest that the serial range from 8.0-8.6 encompassed 4 years of production. It encompassed 1 year of production from 1983-1984

[Dreamin]

Originally Posted by PVR

I will dispute your serial ranges as I have compiled my own personal chart, unlike BOBS which is completely wrong, and I have the following:


8.0 million serial production is towards the middle of 1983
8.6 million serial production is towards the middle of 1984

When these watches actually got sold or the date of sale on their certificates is another matter, but the actual production dates I stated are what I feel are correct.

Springer is INCORRECT to suggest that the serial range from 8.0-8.6 encompassed 4 years of production. It encompassed 1 year of production from 1983-1984

I am still a newbie on this topic; and have been researching heavily as I am on the hunt for a specific year. I agree with this based on what I’ve found- and its interesting how many sellers state the year of the watch based on the sale date, not the serial.

[springer]

Originally Posted by PVR

I will dispute your serial ranges as I have compiled my own personal chart, unlike BOBS which is completely wrong, and I have the following:


8.0 million serial production is towards the middle of 1983
8.6 million serial production is towards the middle of 1984

When these watches actually got sold or the date of sale on their certificates is another matter, but the actual production dates I stated are what I feel are correct.

Springer is INCORRECT to suggest that the serial range from 8.0-8.6 encompassed 4 years of production. It encompassed 1 year of production from 1983-1984

I count from 1983 until 1986. Those are my dates for 8.0 to 8.6 but yours may differ.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

https://tropicalwatch.com/watches/lujq

It’s since been sold but they certainly exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That looks new old stock. But they are exceptionally rare and have seen people use that term to mean worn, serviced and then not worn. I have also seen NOS used and the stickers and tags removed-with no way to prove that it has not been worn. There is big $$ involved in that NOS label and stickers and hang tags can be faked far, far, easier than watches and their parts especially in todays age of 3D printing.

I mean the massive premium for that label “NOS” goes poof as soon as it’s strapped on the wrist, like 10-15k in some instances just gone in a second. That’s a massive premium to pay for a label that can’t really be proven.

I would sooner get a watch that is in great condition, box and papers and pocket the premium to use on another watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[springer]

Originally Posted by alwayshere

I also double / tripled checked the serial number ranges post Springer's comment and out of many of the common sites on Rolex serials, they all seem to suggest the same conclusion (maybe they are all quoting eachother?) and its:

1984: 8.0 million
1985: 8.6 million

Unless someone disputes these sources, your Rolex would fall into 1984.

My 16750 is 1984 serial but has a 1982 clasp code... beats me...

While production dates are not fixed and are based on opinions, here are a couple examples from 1983. 8.0 and 8.1 million. There are other examples if you look.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by Chester01

That looks new old stock. But they are exceptionally rare and have seen people use that term to mean worn, serviced and then not worn. I have also seen NOS used and the stickers and tags removed-with no way to prove that it has not been worn. There is big $$ involved in that NOS label and stickers and hang tags can be faked far, far, easier than watches and their parts especially in todays age of 3D printing.

I mean the massive premium for that label “NOS” goes poof as soon as it’s strapped on the wrist, like 10-15k in some instances just gone in a second. That’s a massive premium to pay for a label that can’t really be proven.

I would sooner get a watch that is in great condition, box and papers and pocket the premium to use on another watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally agree on all accounts. I’ve seen many folks trying to sell with the NOS badge when they have either put stickers on a polished watch, or previously worn then serviced with no stickers. NOS can only mean unworn and stickered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swish77]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

NOS can only mean unworn and stickered.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, although keep in mind that Rolex didn't always use stickers all over the case and bracelet as they do today. I've seen alleged NOS Rolexes that only have a case-back sticker.

[SignotheTimes]

Originally Posted by swish77

Agreed, although keep in mind that Rolex didn't always use stickers all over the case and bracelet as they do today. I've seen alleged NOS Rolexes that only have a case-back sticker.

This is what the sticker looks like after 37 years 😉

[Thuilln]

Originally Posted by springer

Just for my clarification, your comment regarding 8.0-8.6 serial range was only over the course of a year or so who knows... means that this serial number range is for one year of production?

My experience indicates serial numbers ranging from 8.0 to 8.6 would encompass approximately four years of production.

That would account for approximately 150 000 units a year.. I’m sure today’s production rate is much higher, but what was it really like back in those years?