1675 Advice from the ground up!:)

[cruvon]

Another query:), read somewhere that early 1675's had a thin case, I thought all 1675's had the same case width? If not, what was the difference in width, any comparison pics between a early thin and later thicker case would be great. Also any idea what the difference in thickness is between a 1680 and 1675 case, comparison pics would be great!

Thanks

[oneillba]

I remember back when I was a kid in grade school, I wanted one of these. Wouldn't mind one now either. Congrats!

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by cruvon

Another query:), read somewhere that early 1675's had a thin case, I thought all 1675's had the same case width? If not, what was the difference in width, any comparison pics between a early thin and later thicker case would be great. Also any idea what the difference in thickness is between a 1680 and 1675 case, comparison pics would be great!

Thanks

Found a nice pic of a side by side comparison of a 1680 v/s 1675, thanks to TimeToGo here, just copying the pic from your post for easy viewing! While the 1680 is quite thicker than the 1675 (would have loved both pics to be crown side pics or of the opposite side and the 1675 is a bit further away so could be looking thinner than it is v/s the 1680 so more pics would be great), I see the 1675 bezel insert is thicker than the 1680's.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=154566

[mid-o-light]

Originally Posted by cruvon

Another query:), read somewhere that early 1675's had a thin case, I thought all 1675's had the same case width? If not, what was the difference in width, any comparison pics between a early thin and later thicker case would be great. Also any idea what the difference in thickness is between a 1680 and 1675 case, comparison pics would be great!

Thanks

You may confuse with 1665 DRSD thin case I guess. Never heard that 1675 has thin case variation before.

And yes 1675 case is significantly thinner than 1680 sub case, which make 1675 more comfy on my tiny wrist ;) Crown guard profile is different as well as shown in photo below. The coke GMT on the left is 16760 Fat Lady if you may interest ;)

[cruvon]

Here's one more I got from some old archives here, the difference doesn't look that pronounced here, thanks RALAUstin for the pics




https://www.rolexforums.com/archive/.../t-231441.html

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by mid-o-light

You may confuse with 1665 DRSD thin case I guess. Never heard that 1675 has thin case variation before.

And yes 1675 case is significantly thinner than 1680 sub case, which make 1675 more comfy on my tiny wrist ;) Crown guard profile is different as well as shown in photo below. The coke GMT on the left is 16760 Fat Lady if you may interest ;)

Thanks for the pics and great collection you have there:). Did the fat lady have a thicker case?

This is where I read it where it states 1959-1964 had a thin case so assuming the later ones had a thick case

1959-1964:
Caliber 1565
Gloss dial
Thin case

http://www.gmtmasterhistory.com/gmt-..._ref_1675.html


Edit: Actually looks like that's a recent thread for 1680 v/s 1675 thickness
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=231441

[Vincent65]

Fat Lady = thick

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Fat Lady = thick

Thanks Karl, don't think the ladies will appreciate that name:)!

[cruvon]

Just found this info here which am assuming is the thin case and the later case widths, looks like a 3cm difference, can anyone confirm?

- GMT Master (1675) Plexi - 1,30 cm
- GMT Master (1675 thin case) Plexi - 1,27 cm

http://www.watch-pop.com/rolex-vinta...age-11991.html

[mid-o-light]

Originally Posted by cruvon

This is where I read it where it states 1959-1964 had a thin case so assuming the later ones had a thick case

http://www.gmtmasterhistory.com/gmt-..._ref_1675.html

1959-1964 is Pointed Crown Guard era which I believe it's what they mean. I also found a post suggested that PCG aka "thin case" is 0.3mm thinner than ordinary 1675. Here is info on case thickness in various models.

here my GMT list:
bottom to glass (w/o cyclop)
- GMT Master (16750) Plexi - 1,30 cm
- GMT Master II (16760) - 1,28 cm
- GMT Master (16700) - 1,18 cm
furhter datas:
- GMT Master II (16710) - 1,20 cm
- GMT Master (1675) Plexi - 1,30 cm
- GMT Master (1675 thin case) Plexi - 1,27 cm
- GMT Master (6542) Plexi - 1,27 cm
to compare
- Submariner Date (16610) - 1,28 cm

Ref:
http://www.watch-pop.com/rolex-vinta...age-11991.html

[mid-o-light]

And yes the fat lady 16760 feels a bit thicker on wrist than 1680 sub, but less than SD.

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by mid-o-light

1959-1964 is Pointed Crown Guard era which I believe it's what they mean. I also found a post suggested that PCG aka "thin case" is 0.3mm thinner than ordinary 1675. Here is info on case thickness in various models.

Ref:
http://www.watch-pop.com/rolex-vinta...age-11991.html

Thanks mate, would be interesting to see if 3cms makes a discernable difference in side by side pics.

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by mid-o-light

And yes the fat lady 16760 feels a bit thicker on wrist than 1680 sub, but less than SD.

Interesting, would be great to see side by side pics of your fat lady 16760 pitched against your 1675.

[cruvon]

Still looking for comparison pics between early and late 1675 GMT cases, from link above looks like a 0.03cm difference so wanted to know if that's discernable!

[greekbum]

Side by side a 1675 VS 16750 Comparison

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by greekbum

Side by side a 1675 VS 16750 Comparison

Thanks Nikos, very cool, I can see quite a few changes. Also any pics of early 1675's v/s the later 1675's showing the difference in thickness between the two would be great.

[pdoukas]

Hey San,

Here's a link to my fat lady. Can't really tell the size but you can see the difference between it and my 1675. I no longer have the fat lady or the sub, as I just recently traded them for my new incoming................

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=245046

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by pdoukas

Hey San,

Here's a link to my fat lady. Can't really tell the size but you can see the difference between it and my 1675. I no longer have the fat lady or the sub, as I just recently traded them for my new incoming................

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=245046

Thanks Pete, great pics and thread, looking forward to your incoming:)

[genevewatches]

Originally Posted by cruvon

Thanks John, very cool pic, never saw the insert back before, almost like a clay red! Any reason why they were coloured on the back? Don't think the 1680 inserts have any colouring on the back (though I haven't personally seen a 1680 insert back) so inquisitive on why they would take the trouble to do it on 1675 inserts:)

lol?

anyone..........anyone.........anyone......hello.. ......anyone.....

[learningtofly]

Originally Posted by cruvon

Hi Puffy, here's another pic of the insert, here showing is more blue, guess the dark lighting is to blame in the pic above!

Well, I'm known for my moody, romantic watch shots after all

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by learningtofly

Well, I'm known for my moody, romantic watch shots after all

, true:)

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by cruvon

Thanks Karl, don't think the ladies will appreciate that name:)!

just saw this!

[roh123]

Originally Posted by cruvon

Found a nice pic of a side by side comparison of a 1680 v/s 1675, thanks to TimeToGo here, just copying the pic from your post for easy viewing! While the 1680 is quite thicker than the 1675 (would have loved both pics to be crown side pics or of the opposite side and the 1675 is a bit further away so could be looking thinner than it is v/s the 1680 so more pics would be great), I see the 1675 bezel insert is thicker than the 1680's.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=154566

Not sure this helps but here's a 1675 "thin case" vs a Tudor 7016 which I believe have the same case as a 5513? The GMT is a -66 1.5 mill and the Tudor is stamped 68 on the caseback. Both are obviously previously polished.



Regarding inserts I have no clue when fat became less fat and in the end thin. The comments people done seem fair. Regarding blue back inserts I've always thought these were for 16750 and red backs for 1675.

For gilt dials I'd only know the non minute track gilt dials. These came around 1 mill and first on PCG and later on the normal square guards. Gilt is always accepted to at least 1.4 mill but I am quite confident the switch from gilt to matte were around 1.6. There are two versions of these gilt dials that are quite similar. You will have the normal ones which have the "swiss - t < 25" text over five markers and then you have one version where the text is only over three markers at the 6 index. I'm not sure if these weren't used at the same time but if I had to guess the shorter text over three markers are on later watches rather than earlier. This said I've seen the five marker dial on late gilts as well.

There are some "rare" versions as well with only swiss and some underlines. For these you will have to ask the experts. I'm only a newbie. :)

Borrowed pics from the VRF dial archive:




In the end I really recommend you to get a gilt one. The beauty of a gilt is something completely different than a matte one. Especially since you already have a red sub I think a gilt GMT will be the perfect watch to add. I would however look until I could find a nice one with real nice glossy laquer. Gilts can be super nice when actually nice and kind of boring if the surface isn't perfect. For me the gilt GMT's are still cheap and there are quite many out there if you are interested. In time I think these will eventually find their day and get the appreciation they deserve. It is simply stunning watches. :)

Here is mine. Well used, polished etc. Still a beauty for me. :)

[cruvon]

Originally Posted by roh123

Not sure this helps but here's a 1675 "thin case" vs a Tudor 7016 which I believe have the same case as a 5513? The GMT is a -66 1.5 mill and the Tudor is stamped 68 on the caseback. Both are obviously previously polished.


Regarding inserts I have no clue when fat became less fat and in the end thin. The comments people done seem fair. Regarding blue back inserts I've always thought these were for 16750 and red backs for 1675.

For gilt dials I'd only know the non minute track gilt dials. These came around 1 mill and first on PCG and later on the normal square guards. Gilt is always accepted to at least 1.4 mill but I am quite confident the switch from gilt to matte were around 1.6. There are two versions of these gilt dials that are quite similar. You will have the normal ones which have the "swiss - t < 25" text over five markers and then you have one version where the text is only over three markers at the 6 index. I'm not sure if these weren't used at the same time but if I had to guess the shorter text over three markers are on later watches rather than earlier. This said I've seen the five marker dial on late gilts as well.

There are some "rare" versions as well with only swiss and some underlines. For these you will have to ask the experts. I'm only a newbie. :)

Borrowed pics from the VRF dial archive:



In the end I really recommend you to get a gilt one. The beauty of a gilt is something completely different than a matte one. Especially since you already have a red sub I think a gilt GMT will be the perfect watch to add. I would however look until I could find a nice one with real nice glossy laquer. Gilts can be super nice when actually nice and kind of boring if the surface isn't perfect. For me the gilt GMT's are still cheap and there are quite many out there if you are interested. In time I think these will eventually find their day and get the appreciation they deserve. It is simply stunning watches. :)

Here is mine. Well used, polished etc. Still a beauty for me. :)

Thanks for the info mate, much appreciated. Wow, you have a very beautiful gilt!

[Tony G]

what are the acutual dimensions on the 1675 ?

[skprd13]

Wow this is an old thread, however the site that Springer attached is awesome information. Thanks John!

[Tony G]

I like the post about dial.hands.bezel insert harmony........ which is so true......