HELP identify my new Rolex finds Please!

[GrantAllen]

I just picked up two rolex I checked the serial numbers. The better shape rolex on left dates to 1966 and the worn rolex is 1969. I notice the crowns are different. Im trying to figure what dials they are. they both look MATT finish but im confused as to the dials designation Mark 1, 2, 3 etc. the bands are not rolex. the nice one had much cleaner printing then the other. they are both marked 1675 with all the correct markings. can anyone help? thanks

DSC04651.jpg

[Kingface66]

Before moving on, what serial number chart did you use. Many are quite far off.

[droptopman]

That faded insert on the right is
And even though you call the one on the right "worn" the lugs look thicker to me. Also like the patina of the dial plots better. Both have closed 6 date wheels which I believe is period correct. For early matte 1675's.
Someone with more knowledge on dials will come along.
Need more pics to provide a better assessment.

[Michael M.]

The left is a 1675 most likely from the mid to late 1960's or early 1970's. The dial is a later service replacement along with the bezel insert.

The watch on the right is a 1675 from the late 1960's with (original) MK1 dial and fat font bezel insert.

[springer]

Originally Posted by GrantAllen

I just picked up two rolex I checked the serial numbers. The better shape rolex on left dates to 1966 and the worn rolex is 1969. I notice the crowns are different. Im trying to figure what dials they are. they both look MATT finish but im confused as to the dials designation Mark 1, 2, 3 etc. the bands are not rolex. the nice one had much cleaner printing then the other. they are both marked 1675 with all the correct markings. can anyone help? thanks

Attachment 849835

The one on the left has a Mark V(b) dial which was one of the variations of the Mark V dials used in GMT 1675s during the later years from the 1970s. One will often see these later 1970s dials in watches from the late 1960s where they were used as replacement dials. This watch should have the Mark I dial or possibly the Mark 1.5 or even Mark 0. As Morgan noted, the bezel insert is a later service replacement.

The watch on the right has the Mark I dial which would be correct for a GMT from 1969 - that is if the serial numbers are within range for the years you indicated. The bezel insert appears to be original.

[GrantAllen]

Im getting email saying that the one on the left is period correct with correct insert and dial. I came here for possibly difinitive info but alas im back to square one with contradicting opinions... Im sure being 100% on all rolexes is not easy. I see there are so many variants one can only guess based on past data. I think

[GrantAllen]

I was told the following. the dial hands and bezel are correct to the date 1966 which is the date they went from gilt to white. the arrow is larger? previous they were smaller. The dial is matt the watch is serial #1.47 dating it to 1966 but some are saying the dial is form the 1970's and another said the thin crown with long e ( what ever that means) is also period correct. WELL at lest they work and I love wearing them, that is the real joy of having found them, I think

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by GrantAllen

Im getting email saying that the one on the left is period correct with correct insert and dial. I came here for possibly difinitive info but alas im back to square one with contradicting opinions... Im sure being 100% on all rolexes is not easy. I see there are so many variants one can only guess based on past data. I think

See post #5. I don't know that there is a better person to answer your questions than Springer.

If you are getting conflicting information via email I would carefully consider where it is coming from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[droptopman]

^^^this. I would value Springers input. He is very knowledgeable.

[springer]

Originally Posted by GrantAllen

I was told the following. the dial hands and bezel are correct to the date 1966 which is the date they went from gilt to white. the arrow is larger? previous they were smaller. The dial is matt the watch is serial #1.47 dating it to 1966 but some are saying the dial is form the 1970's and another said the thin crown with long e ( what ever that means) is also period correct. WELL at lest they work and I love wearing them, that is the real joy of having found them, I think

If your watch serial is 1.47, the dial on the left should be gilt. The current one is not correct. As far as contradicting opinions go, your other source is mistaken - believe what you choose.

[marcgaudi]

The one on the right is clearly the nicer of the two


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zapokee]

Do your self a favor and trust Springer. He's the GMT guy.

[Micha]

Originally Posted by zapokee

Do your self a favor and trust Springer. He's the GMT guy.

if you don't you will regret it

[Spyder555]

Springer knows GMT, Very knowledgable!!! The one on the right is sweet!

[Tom1675]

Within this forum are enough resources for anyone to date any Rolex ever made, let alone a popular reference like the 1675 GMT. Poke around and educate yourself about these and future purchases. For this inquiry, start here: https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=316726

Beware, this forum is a gateway drug.

[GrantAllen]

I was contacted and told that my 1966 GMT in the image (left image) is a transitional dial from the change over from gilt to white. the reason the type font is odd is because the dial was printed in white using a previous year gilt die (not sure of the year). this was also confirmed by data from various sources on 1966 GMTs on the internet. anyone with info on transitional dials please let me know. The bezel insert also looks correct but how can you really know if its replaced? Both Rolexes were never serviced and the 1969 (right image) being all original with the 1966 looking to have never been worn would lead me to believe the buyer used the 1969 often and let the 1966 stay safely away. with the date 1.4mil (1966) the dial, a period 1966 or earlier gilt die in such pristine condition one would assume (and I use that word assume with caution) would think the bezel insert is also original. The watch is near to mint with not even a scratch. I think it may have never been worn. I wish the box and papers were with it.

[datejust24]

I would heed the advice of Springer...you aren't going to get any better of a source of info on this reference..

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by GrantAllen

I was contacted and told that my 1966 GMT in the image (left image) is a transitional dial from the change over from gilt to white. the reason the type font is odd is because the dial was printed in white using a previous year gilt die (not sure of the year). this was also confirmed by data from various sources on 1966 GMTs on the internet. anyone with info on transitional dials please let me know. The bezel insert also looks correct but how can you really know if its replaced? Both Rolexes were never serviced and the 1969 (right image) being all original with the 1966 looking to have never been worn would lead me to believe the buyer used the 1969 often and let the 1966 stay safely away. with the date 1.4mil (1966) the dial, a period 1966 or earlier gilt die in such pristine condition one would assume (and I use that word assume with caution) would think the bezel insert is also original. The watch is near to mint with not even a scratch. I think it may have never been worn. I wish the box and papers were with it.

Can you disclose your source? Or, at least provide the information/proof that he's provided you? Just curious to see what info it's based on.

[1675-David]

looks a lot like the dial discussed in this thread...

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=442238

[springer]

Originally Posted by 1675-David

looks a lot like the dial discussed in this thread...

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=442238

Yes it is, what I refer to as the Mark 5 (b) - I mentioned in my first post in this thread.

[springer]

Originally Posted by GrantAllen

I was contacted and told that my 1966 GMT in the image (left image) is a transitional dial from the change over from gilt to white. the reason the type font is odd is because the dial was printed in white using a previous year gilt die (not sure of the year). this was also confirmed by data from various sources on 1966 GMTs on the internet. anyone with info on transitional dials please let me know. The bezel insert also looks correct but how can you really know if its replaced? Both Rolexes were never serviced and the 1969 (right image) being all original with the 1966 looking to have never been worn would lead me to believe the buyer used the 1969 often and let the 1966 stay safely away. with the date 1.4mil (1966) the dial, a period 1966 or earlier gilt die in such pristine condition one would assume (and I use that word assume with caution) would think the bezel insert is also original. The watch is near to mint with not even a scratch. I think it may have never been worn. I wish the box and papers were with it.

The Mark 0 white-lettered dial closely resembles the last gilt dial. (The last gilt dial variation would have been found on GMTs in the 1.4 million serial range.) The dial on your watch isn't close to the appearance of a Mark 0. My last comment here remains the same, the the dial found on the GMT on the left is what I refer to as a Mark V variation which I call mark 5(b). Additionally, I would suspect the watch originally came with the small 24-hour hand which your watch does not have.

If you like it, I like it - that's all that really matters.

[subx]

as mentioned before, Springer is super knowledgeable in GMT, listen to him for expertise on your GMT.