16753 GMT Two-Tone Thoughts

[PepsiMan]

Thinking about getting a 16753 with nipple dial. 5 million serial (puts it at around what year?). My used dealer has one for around $8,000. Pros and cons? Things to look out for?

[Tools]

Dating is a bit fuzzier for TT and precious metal models, but this one would likely be in the mid to late 70's.

I like TT GMT's and wear one frequently. The bracelets tend to crack on the edges where they push against the SS outers if they are used hard and worn too loose.

If it is a reputable Dealer you shouldn't have any issues, although a 50 year old watch will have been through a few service calls.

[springer]

A 5 million serial number would identify the watch as a model 1675 not 16753.

[Dan S]

$8k from a dealer sounds pretty low, so I am wondering about the condition, originality, and completeness. I am seeing good examples of 1675 RBs listed in the $9k-$10k range from private sellers, and a bit more from dealers. There have been a few flawed examples auctioned off on eBay in the past 6 months, and even those went for more than $8k.

So it could be a great deal, but usually dealers don't just take 20%+ off the value of a watch for no reason.

[L.K Johnson]

It’s a really cool model especially when it’s on oyster band an nipple dial!

[PepsiMan]

Originally Posted by springer

A 5 million serial number would identify the watch as a model 1675 not 16753.

Does that mean the 16753 never showed up in a 5 million serial number? Would this be considered a TT 1675 then?

[TimeLord2]

Originally Posted by PepsiMan

Does that mean the 16753 never showed up in a 5 million serial number? Would this be considered a TT 1675 then?

1675 reference was produced between 1959-1980, approximately. 1675 all stainless, 1675/3 Two Tone, and 1675/8 all gold. After 1980, the 16750 (all stainless) was introduced of which there is a 16753 for TT, and a 16758 for full gold. @Springer answered your question regarding reference, and he is without doubt one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum for GMTs specifically but also Rolex in general, IMHO. Larry and Dan also know their shit too. You're in good hands—don't listen to me.

[JustinK]

Easiest way to tell the difference between the 1675 and the 16753 is the Rolex logo. On the 1675 it's an applied (raised) logo and on the 16753 its flat (printed).

If it's a 5 million serial its very likely a 1675. The 16753 was introduced around 1980 so it could be possible to have a high 5 million serial but I have not seen one.

Post a picture and your get better feedback.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by PepsiMan

Does that mean the 16753 never showed up in a 5 million serial number? Would this be considered a TT 1675 then?

The reference will of course be indicated between the lugs. One can also distinguish by using the order of the hand stack. This is one reason why we always ask for photos, it really helps avoid confusion and miscommunication. It might also be helpful to see the color of the dial and insert. The four and five-digits TTs had different options. So this thread becomes extremely speculative if you just keep asking questions without providing solid information and photos.

[springer]

Originally Posted by JustinK

Easiest way to tell the difference between the 1675 and the 16753 is the Rolex logo. On the 1675 it's an applied (raised) logo and on the 16753 its flat (printed).

If it's a 5 million serial its very likely a 1675. The 16753 was introduced around 1980 so it could be possible to have a high 5 million serial but I have not seen one.

Post a picture and your get better feedback.

The lowest number that I have ever seen for a 16750 or 16753 is 6.1 million. There could possibly be some 6.0 million too but I haven't never seen one nor heard of any beginning with 6.0.

Most dating charts indicate 6.0 and 6.1 thru 6.3 as 1979 models.

[JustinK]

Originally Posted by springer

The lowest number that I have ever seen for a 16750 or 16753 is 6.1 million. There could possibly be some 6.0 million too but I haven't never seen one nor heard of any beginning with 6.0.

Most dating charts indicate 6.0 and 6.1 thru 6.3 as 1979 models.

I agree, I have never seen one with 5 million serial either but the range is so close as I have seen them with 6.0 serials.

I vaguely recall a discussion on the subject years ago but I could be confusing it with a conversations on the earliest serials for the 16750's.

[PepsiMan]

Well being new to the forum I need 7 more posts in order to be able to post a flickr link to the photo. Be back when I have 10 posts.

[PepsiMan]

Here's a photo

GMT (Medium) by dylancode, on Flickr

[TimeLord2]

Originally Posted by PepsiMan

Here's a photo

Definitely a 1675, applied crown and hand stack order. No bracelet? That would be a factor for the low price. Again wait until the others chime in but dial look s nice from this angle, hands potentially replaced, as they look way too white. I'm taking back the potentially—more like replaced. Crown guards look soft but the lugs still look quite thick. Insert looks good to me with a nice fat font. Now lets wait for the real comments from the experts. Oh and one more thing check if it is running well, esrvice is expensive, like 1k

[PepsiMan]

There is a bracelet what comes with it. It's about as loose as a slinky.

[PepsiMan]

Originally Posted by springer

The lowest number that I have ever seen for a 16750 or 16753 is 6.1 million. There could possibly be some 6.0 million too but I haven't never seen one nor heard of any beginning with 6.0.

Most dating charts indicate 6.0 and 6.1 thru 6.3 as 1979 models.

I have a photo now if that helps.

[L.K Johnson]

Originally Posted by PepsiMan

There is a bracelet what comes with it. It's about as loose as a slinky.

You could have that restored by Michael Young and in the meantime where the watch on a vintage strap, it would really suit this model...

[White Collar Boy]

Originally Posted by L.K Johnson

You could have that restored by Michael Young...

Or, a bit closer to the OP, by Mike Hui at Rolliworks...

[DJ39]

You have already established that it is a 1675


The confusion I think came from the 1675/3 being written as 16753 thus confusing it with later 5 digit model

You can have the bracket restored by having it rewired, it is worth it if you want to wear it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PepsiMan]

Thanks, and for those of you in the know, mind having a look at the photo and let me know your thoughts? Anything fishy? Parts that are obviously not original, etc.?

[TimeLord2]

Originally Posted by PepsiMan

Thanks, and for those of you in the know, mind having a look at the photo and let me know your thoughts? Anything fishy? Parts that are obviously not original, etc.?

I can tell you one thing for sure. They will want more pictures at a variety of angles, are the chamfers still there? A shot of the movement if possible. Other shots of the dial to check condition. take them outside with no hands, fingers or arms included in the pics. Show the bracelet too and the marks in the clasp, also a shot of the end links on the bracelet.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by PepsiMan

Thanks, and for those of you in the know, mind having a look at the photo and let me know your thoughts? Anything fishy? Parts that are obviously not original, etc.?

Based on one photo, I don't see anything "fishy". I agree that the hands are not original, and frankly I don't like the mismatched lume look. That is just a personal aesthetic quirk of mine and actually a deal-breaker for me unless we're talking about something incredibly rare, but I'm sure that most people don't care. All things considered, I think $8k is probably fair if this is the watch you want. It gives you some options. You can just wear it as is. Of you can do a full restoration/service treatment, with matching hands and a bracelet restoration (or replacement).

Or for $1k-$2k more, you can get something a bit better that doesn't need any work. But you might have to be patient. The market is really mature, and these things tend to even out. But it's not a rip-off if that's your concern. I'm assuming that your dealer is standing behind the authenticity 100%.