GMT 1675 - which one would you choose ?

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by lhanddds

Correct

Very sound advice. You can't wear the wardrobe, and that's where the Box and Papers are.👍👍👍

[Julz75]

Thx you all for your answers and help, glad to have opened this thread and benefit from your knwoledge.

First of, I think most of you agree that #2 is a better choice than #1.
Happy to hear that as I also like #2 very much with its stunning patina and perfect match between dial and hands.
It is clearly my first choice and I kind of got a crush on it to be honest.
Not to mention it is cheapper than the #1.

I also agree - as said in my opening post - that #2 weakness is the case.
I'm usually pretty demanding regarding the case, but it doesn't bother that much here. I don't know why ; I think the patina catches my attention too much.
In any case I will have the possibility the see and touch the MK II this week, so I'll see if its case/lugs really bother me or not.

For the full set approach, I'm a bit divided especially for really old watches.
I bought my first three Rolex with full set (quite easy for the Airking and Exporer II, less for the 5513 MKV). It will clearly be a plus when/if I sell them, but honestly the papers sit in a box and I never look at them. In contrary to my watches.
And when I see the prices of a 1675 full set on Chrono24 (and not always in good shape), I'm really cooled of.

I will keep you updated.
Let's see if my (patina) crush on this watch fades away when I see it.

[Wiener48]

Keep us updated, good luck

[roh123]

Skip box and papers. Top condition watches sell easier and better than less great watches with papers so focus on condition. Of course box and papers are good if that perfect watch has it but only see it as a bonus. A 100% watch will give much more enjoyment than a 90% one and it will also be a better buy if you ever decide to sell.

Best of luck!

[mattedialdoc]

Originally Posted by roh123

Skip box and papers. Top condition watches sell easier and better than less great watches with papers so focus on condition. Of course box and papers are good if that perfect watch has it but only see it as a bonus. A 100% watch will give much more enjoyment than a 90% one and it will also be a better buy if you ever decide to sell.

Best of luck!

This is a great point : always choose the BEST condition watch you can afford. If you had the luxury of choosing btwn two equally perfect examples, and one had papers, then you could decide if the premium is worth it to you. Cheers!



------
Instagram: @mattedialdoc

[Julz75]

Originally Posted by mattedialdoc

This is a great point : always choose the BEST condition watch you can afford. If you had the luxury of choosing btwn two equally perfect examples, and one had papers, then you could decide if the premium is worth it to you. Cheers!



------
Instagram: @mattedialdoc

Noted, thx.

[rootbeer7]

Originally Posted by mattedialdoc

This is a great point : always choose the BEST condition watch you can afford. If you had the luxury of choosing btwn two equally perfect examples, and one had papers, then you could decide if the premium is worth it to you. Cheers!



------
Instagram: @mattedialdoc

This exactly

[CRM114]

Of the 2 choices, I'd pick #1 MK iV (1977). They both have nice patina to my eyes, and I much prefer #1's bezel.

But the main reason is the lugs on #2 turn me right off, particularly the length of the top ones, especially the 1 o'clock lug, and depth, especially at the 1 o'clock & 5 o'clock. They both look particularly horrible (not that 2 remaining are good). The lugs aren't merely rounded, but polished down to a point they're either flush or much shorter in length and/or below the level of the endlink edges. The lug length should noticeably extend beyond the endlinks and the top surface of the endlink should be sunken between the lugs, not the other way around. Also, the lughole at 1 o'clock looks cratered.

I'd classify the lugs on #2 as worse than being merely "used", even for 1972, and wouldn't pay what they're asking. Some added box and misc. paperwork doesn't replace metal of the lugs/case forever gone. For a watch in poor condition or with major flaws that can't easily be rectified, they are thrown in by a seller to act as bait.

Given the prices of both, I'd keep looking and spend the money available on the best-condition/correct watch.

[The Argonaut]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

Box and paperwork are easily available on the market. Don't buy 2nd rate watch which you're gong to wear over paperwork that you'll store.

First class advice.

[Julz75]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Of the 2 choices, I'd pick #1 MK iV (1977). They both have nice patina to my eyes, and I much prefer #1's bezel.

But the main reason is the lugs on #2 turn me right off, particularly the length of the top ones, especially the 1 o'clock lug, and depth, especially at the 1 o'clock & 5 o'clock. They both look particularly horrible (not that 2 remaining are good). The lugs aren't merely rounded, but polished down to a point they're either flush or much shorter in length and/or below the level of the endlink edges. The lug length should noticeably extend beyond the endlinks and the top surface of the endlink should be sunken between the lugs, not the other way around. Also, the lughole at 1 o'clock looks cratered.

I'd classify the lugs on #2 as worse than being merely "used", even for 1972, and wouldn't pay what they're asking. Some added box and misc. paperwork doesn't replace metal of the lugs/case forever gone. For a watch in poor condition or with major flaws that can't easily be rectified, they are thrown in by a seller to act as bait.

Given the prices of both, I'd keep looking and spend the money available on the best-condition/correct watch.

Thx for the advice

[Julz75]

Hi all,

A quick update.
I've seen this week the #2 GMT 1675 and confirm the watch was overpolished with lugs in really bad shape.
Such a pity as the patina was increadibly atractive to my eyes. That's that, but thanks again because I couln't see just with pictures what some of you had immediatly seen. It is much easier for me to notice in "real life". Must train my eyes.

Anyway I'm persuing my quest and found those two models on Exotic Watches.
Both cases are in really good shapes and patina seems very nice (but not stunning) ; yet for patina I find it difficult to project from photo to real life at it really can change depending on light and photograph skills.

Both are around 12K€, so a bit expensive but couldn't find cheaper (don't hesitate if you know great websites to buy rolex and even in the US considering the current $/€ exchange rate)
#1 is a 1972 MKII
#2 is a 1978 MKIV

Happy to get your feedback

[Julz75]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Of the 2 choices, I'd pick #1 MK iV (1977). They both have nice patina to my eyes, and I much prefer #1's bezel.

But the main reason is the lugs on #2 turn me right off, particularly the length of the top ones, especially the 1 o'clock lug, and depth, especially at the 1 o'clock & 5 o'clock. They both look particularly horrible (not that 2 remaining are good). The lugs aren't merely rounded, but polished down to a point they're either flush or much shorter in length and/or below the level of the endlink edges. The lug length should noticeably extend beyond the endlinks and the top surface of the endlink should be sunken between the lugs, not the other way around. Also, the lughole at 1 o'clock looks cratered.

I'd classify the lugs on #2 as worse than being merely "used", even for 1972, and wouldn't pay what they're asking. Some added box and misc. paperwork doesn't replace metal of the lugs/case forever gone. For a watch in poor condition or with major flaws that can't easily be rectified, they are thrown in by a seller to act as bait.

Given the prices of both, I'd keep looking and spend the money available on the best-condition/correct watch.

As some people here seem to be be very sharp on lugs ;- ), a quick question I'd like to share with you.

I've spotted a very nice GMT with great patina on an US website recommanded on this forum, and it says that the watch has never been polished.
As a matter of fact lugs look very fat and untouched with very sharp bevels, yet the top surface of the endlink is not fully sunken between the lugs. as you can see on the photos below.

=> Is it normal and can it happen if the watch has never been polished ?
Could it be a problem of endlink ?

Happy to have your view on this.
Below some photos

[mattedialdoc]

Originally Posted by Julz75

As some people here seem to be be very sharp on lugs ;- ), a quick question I'd like to share with you.

I've spotted a very nice GMT with great patina on an US website recommanded on this forum, and it says that the watch has never been polished.
As a matter of fact lugs look very fat and untouched with very sharp bevels, yet the top surface of the endlink is not fully sunken between the lugs. as you can see on the photos below.

=> Is it normal and can it happen if the watch has never been polished ?
Could it be a problem of endlink ?

Happy to have your view on this.
Below some photos

Pics are from Andrew’s site. Nice watch. Standard fit for an endlink. You can easily adjust.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Julz75]

Originally Posted by mattedialdoc

Pics are from Andrew’s site. Nice watch. Standard fit for an endlink. You can easily adjust.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thx for your feedback.

[Wiener48]

And, any news?

[twnturbo]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

Box and paperwork are easily available on the market. Don't buy 2nd rate watch which you're gong to wear over paperwork that you'll store.

I'd disagree on this maybe box & booklets but how you not gonna get punched papers for your watch after the fact ,like Springer said box & booklet add very little value ,but a true full set is gonna cost you.But would agree i'd rather have a mint watch no papers than a beat up one with papers.I was lucky & found a mint full set gmt when i got mine & Op check out this great site for info on all Gmt models you where asking about.GLWS

https://gmtmaster1675.com