Vintage GMT Master over modern with price ceiling?

[quartzcrisis]

Is there a vintage GMT Master you all would buy over the modern version given a price ceiling of the current retail cost? Basically, what vintage would you buy instead, if any, for around $11k-$12k versus getting a modern GMT Master II at an AD?

[MrLemon]

12k you can get a nice 16710 full set
Of course a modern GMT at AD, but they are not available lol
For "big boy" vintage , like 1675 all original, watch only can cost 30k

[quartzcrisis]

Right. Thanks for the reply. I know how expensive some of the vintage ones can be. I was just curious if there was a vintage that people would prefer over a modern with price being the same. I'm hopeful that one day I can finally be allowed to buy a GMT at an AD but am more recently considering a vintage or neo-vintage instead but I can't really spend more than I would buying one at retail.

[Stan Cooper]

I sold my 1675 and bought a very nice 16710 with box and papers. The 16710's jump hour hand, sapphire crystal, and the 3185 caliber movement made the change a no-brainer for me.

[quartzcrisis]

Thanks. Yea, the 16710 is the model I am looking at most closely right now actually. There are definitely examples that seem to get close to the current GMT Master II's retail price. I just need to figure out why exactly there can be such a big variance in price between some 16710 examples and if I care about those reasons in particular.

[dhknola]

16710's full kits were 15kish last year and have gone down to around 11-12 full kit and 9ish for a loose watch so the spread might be dealers who bought high and do not want to sell for 'market' price.

[quartzcrisis]

And I would probably be inclined to just go for a loose watch so long as it's in good shape. I don't personally care about a full kit when something will be my daily that I never plan on selling. Thanks for the info.

[dhknola]

Box and papers (bro) are nice if you have a truly NOS or mint example; they are a premium on any watch really, but as someone once told me "you can't wear the box and papers". Enjoy the hunt and check tropical watch, he has some nice ones at 10.5kish rn

[quartzcrisis]

Yea, that's how I've always looked at it. Of course better to have if you're trying to sell later or to accompany mint collectors pieces. I don't much care for something I'm going to beat the hell out of and never sell though. I really would grab one from an AD right now if I could but I'm just getting sick of waiting. I put my name down sometime in 2019 but I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon so screw it.

[shammad10]

When it comes to vintage, box and papers just limits you. You will miss out on a lot of great watches if you only look at B&P. I have seen lots of people buy watches in very poor shape for a premium over good watch only examples, just because they had box and papers

[Dan S]

Sorry, but the premise of this thread seems a bit goofy to me. Why use the MSRP of a current model as a price cut-off for a collectible vintage model? That seems completely arbitrary, since they are completely different watches, with current and future value being determined in completely different ways (e.g. manufacturer pricing vs collectibility).

[swaini3]

I would prefer a vintage GMT in good condition over any of the modern ones.

[996marty]

For me the vintage pieces are more desirable

[jedione65]

Originally Posted by quartzcrisis

Is there a vintage GMT Master you all would buy over the modern version given a price ceiling of the current retail cost? Basically, what vintage would you buy instead, if any, for around $11k-$12k versus getting a modern GMT Master II at an AD?

You’re in the vintage forum, so anyone here will tell you they prefer any vintage watch over a modern watch - and no, neo vintage like the 90’s and early 2000’s gmt masters don’t count. You would probably end up paying the same or more for a nice vintage gmt in great condition than a modern gmt at grey market price.

[insoul8]

I’m in the same boat myself but can’t spend much more than the retail amount. Was looking at vintage to get one sooner but it seems like neo is the only place that can compete with modern on price. And Neo isn’t as collectible as vintage so modern might be the better value in comparison.

[quartzcrisis]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Sorry, but the premise of this thread seems a bit goofy to me. Why use the MSRP of a current model as a price cut-off for a collectible vintage model? That seems completely arbitrary, since they are completely different watches, with current and future value being determined in completely different ways (e.g. manufacturer pricing vs collectibility).

I realize that they are different in a lot of ways but whether it be a vintage, neo vintage, or modern gmt, they are all related and based on the same idea. One can easily be a substitute for another in my mind if that is the aesthetic I am going for. If I could just walk into an AD and buy a new one right now, I definitely would. But I can’t so I am considering an older model but don’t want to spend more than I would on a new one at retail because that is what I budgeted for it. So not totally arbitrary.

[shammad10]

Sounds like you want a modern GMT. Go for that- you don't want vintage. You have to really love vintage and get deep into the detail.

[quartzcrisis]

Originally Posted by shammad10

Sounds like you want a modern GMT. Go for that- you don't want vintage. You have to really love vintage and get deep into the detail.

Yea, I’m definitely not deep in the details at this point but I I just really want a GMT. I unfortunately don’t have the money or the collectors mentality to be able to pay such a high premium for some of the more desirable vintage models. There are a lot of things I do like better about vintage GMTs though. I like the bezels better and like how they are not static and they show their age and evolve over time. From what I understand, modern GMTs will never age and patina like the vintage models have over the years. I love how the lume ages on vintage models too. The modern GMTs are a bit too shiny and flashy if you ask me. I do still very much enjoy them but I can definitely appreciate some of the more subtle differences on the vintage models. I’m sure I have lots to learn though. But if I could pick any model right now price aside, it would be a 1675 with a fuchsia insert.

[MrLemon]

Originally Posted by quartzcrisis

Yea, I’m definitely not deep in the details at this point but I I just really want a GMT. I unfortunately don’t have the money or the collectors mentality to be able to pay such a high premium for some of the more desirable vintage models. There are a lot of things I do like better about vintage GMTs though. I like the bezels better and like how they are not static and they show their age and evolve over time. From what I understand, modern GMTs will never age and patina like the vintage models have over the years. I love how the lume ages on vintage models too. The modern GMTs are a bit too shiny and flashy if you ask me. I do still very much enjoy them but I can definitely appreciate some of the more subtle differences on the vintage models. I’m sure I have lots to learn though. But if I could pick any model right now price aside, it would be a 1675 with a fuchsia insert.

You seemed to be a solid guy, down to the earth!
Sure in this forum, lots of expert level collectors. They will give you good advice and tell you what "right", but you need to be rich, at least be able to afford the vintage tag. I am very new to vintage world. Trying my best to learn , and buying some watches are affordable to me. So at beginers level, maybe 1675 Fuchsia can wait a bit lol

[quartzcrisis]

Originally Posted by MrLemon

You seemed to be a solid guy, down to the earth!
Sure in this forum, lots of expert level collectors. They will give you good advice and tell you what "right", but you need to be rich, at least be able to afford the vintage tag. I am very new to vintage world. Trying my best to learn , and buying some watches are affordable to me. So at beginers level, maybe 1675 Fuchsia can wait a bit lol

Oh, of course. I imagine I won’t ever have one of those 1675’s at this point. I was just giving an example of a particular version I think is just amazing. I wouldn’t say I’m a total beginner either. I’ve just never gotten into vintage Rolex before. I’ve been into watches for many years and regret not having bought some of these when they could have been had for next to nothing compared to what they are selling for today. But who can predict the future?! I always thought I’d have more time. But no worries either way. I’m just here to learn.

[onetwo127]

Not vintage class, but fits the price range would be a 16710 black face and bezel. I would live with it.

[quartzcrisis]

Originally Posted by onetwo127

Not vintage class, but fits the price range would be a 16710 black face and bezel. I would live with it.

Yea, the 16710 seems to be the best candidate for me though I’m not sure I want to compromise on the Pepsi bezel. I assume they are a bit more than the black bezel though. At any rate, I think I have enough information to at least keep my eyes peeled for something. Is it ok to post listings or pictures of pieces I might be considering in these forums to make sure there isn’t something glaringly wrong or that it’s not a terrible deal?

[springer]

The "real world price" of a new or slightly used ceramic GMT II is what...$18,000 to $20,000. Of course if you are lucky and enjoy the ceramic look, you might just be lucky and find one at retail for around $12,000 to include tax.

The price for a nice GMT II 16710 set is $12,000 to $14,000.

If you are on a budget, the answer is quite simple for me. The 16710 wins hands down and there are no movement issues with the earlier 16710.

You can also find a nice GMT 16750 glossy dial version or a GMT 16700 sapphire crystal in the same price range - somewhere between $12,000 to $15,000 and if lucky, maybe even a complete set.

The discontinued GMTs are a much better value than the ceramic models which are still being produced.

[TuRo]

16750 for me - The Goldilocks Gmt.

[stevegeorge249]

I Totally agree with Mo, my mate got his hands on a 126610LN sub last month.

I was very disappointed, I honestly thought it was a clone.

No character to it at all.

The bezel moved backwards, which I thought shouldn't happen. The bracelet adjuster was jerky and awkward to use. The cyclops was very blue, due to the anti-reflective substance they use. The rehaut engraving wasn't the best.
All-in-all I wouldn't have parted with my hard-earned cash to buy it.
My mate took it to our local Rolex AD, they confirmed it was the authentic to my massive surprise.

Just my opinion, I'm sure many will disagree.

[PepsiBezel]

IMG_3135.jpeg

IMG_7073.jpeg

The 126710BLRO was fun, but the 16710 is just perfect.

You cannot beat the size, the aesthetics of the anodized bezel insert, the thin lugs, the great and functional movement, the light weight bracelet… The 16710 is so versatile with easy to change inserts, etc.

The 126710 is very shiny and bulky; it is more flashy and more modern looking, but less “cool” looking than the 16710.

If you are in DC you aren’t getting a 126710 unless you have a pretty good strong spend history with one of the ADs.

As others commented, often the best value is a 16710LN (black insert). You can likely go to one of the local DC ADs and get a Pepsi insert (or worst case buy from a trusted seller here on TRF).

I also recommend looking at what Jacek has on tropicalwatch.com.

Good luck!

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by MrLemon

12k you can get a nice 16710 full set
Of course a modern GMT at AD, but they are not available lol
For "big boy" vintage , like 1675 all original, watch only can cost 30k

Might even be looking at 35k for a nice non-gilt 1675 with full box and papers these days.

[karleone]

The GMT 16710s prices came down and I can tell you it’s an amazing watch. Get the other bracelet and the three bezel inserts plus the faded ones and you have the most versatile Rolex ever made.

[quartzcrisis]

Thanks for all of the input! 16710 seems like my best option if I don’t want to continue waiting. I will be on the lookout for nice examples on tropical watch and a few of the other vintage sites I frequent. Out of curiosity, if I see a nice 16700, are those also thought of in good regard? I do like that I am guaranteed tritium on that model at least. But overall, the versatility of the 16710 sounds very appealing.

[N0trub]

This is what i did bought a 16700 A serial 1999 it has luminous hands and markers that shine bright all night long. Almost bought a tudor pelogos for the night glow. When my ad eventually calls i will see how i feel and own another watch.