ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
27 April 2013, 06:12 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Real Name: Drew
Location: lafayette, La
Posts: 26
|
Am i Crazy?
Would i be Crazy to trade my 1968 Rolex submariner 1680 for a 116710 GMT II ceramic? Here is my story i came across this 1680 2 years ago when i graduated college. I was in the market for a rolex and fell in love with this old beat up 1680. I had it serviced and polished up after i got it. Although i love the 1680 i do not like wearing it as an everyday watch. So i wanted to trade it in to get a GMT. The 1680 was not passed down by my grandfather or any relative but it is the first Rolex i have purchased with my own money. I am kind of attached to it but i think i would enjoy wearing a newer GMT as an everyday watch. Now if i had the money i would put the 1680 in the safe and buy a new GMT but being i just graduated and other expenses i do not have the money to do that. So what do you guys think? Should i trade my 1680 in and get the GMT or just keep the 1680?
|
27 April 2013, 06:18 AM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: Chris
Location: Cincinnati,Ohio
Watch: Rolexssss
Posts: 3,504
|
I would most definitely keep the 1680 for a few reasons...first off, as you stated, its the first Rolex you've ever owned...second, the 1680 is only going to go up in value where as the GMT is MUCH more common. Lastly, I think you'll just flat out regret it. As far as an every day watch, if you had it serviced like you said you did, its PERFECT for an every day beater....keep it, or...sell it to me
|
27 April 2013, 06:18 AM | #3 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: jP
Location: Texas
Watch: GMT-MASTER
Posts: 17,319
|
Tough decision. I assume it is an even trade based on the post. If you are swapping watch for watch, I'd say the GMT would be more valuable unless you are talking about a red Sub. Other factors to consider is whether the GMT has its original accessories. The more it has, the better for you.
__________________
Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics. |
27 April 2013, 06:25 AM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Real Name: Drew
Location: lafayette, La
Posts: 26
|
No it is not a red sub (I Wish) and yes the GMT has all the papers, box and all accessories. Another thing that kind of bothers me and i know it shouldnt but i will admit it... is that everyone thinks this watch was "handed" down to me and knowing how hard and special it was for me to get it bothers me.
|
27 April 2013, 06:28 AM | #5 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Up a tree
Posts: 4,001
|
I think you should make the trade...
Here's why... You will never know what watch you really love, until you own it... Should you end up missing the 1680, you can always get another... You will never know unless you give it a try... There-in lies part of the fun... Cheers |
30 April 2013, 09:11 AM | #6 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 685
|
Quote:
__________________
Bell & Ross: BRS-98S Casio: G-Shock GW-5000U / GW-5000-1JF / DW-5035D 35th / DW-5030C 30th / DW-5000SP 20th / DW-5600C-9CV / Marlin W-450 Panerai: Luminor 000i Seiko: SBGX117 / SBGX335 |
|
27 April 2013, 06:32 AM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Real Name: Kenny
Location: northern ireland
Watch: SDs, Subs & GMTs
Posts: 5,136
|
Hold your 1680!
|
27 April 2013, 06:34 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Real Name: Drew
Location: lafayette, La
Posts: 26
|
|
27 April 2013, 07:26 AM | #9 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: jP
Location: Texas
Watch: GMT-MASTER
Posts: 17,319
|
Average retail value based on one pic, $4,900 to $5900. The GMT IIc is valued several hundred dollars more for a complete set. I would trade it before he changes his mind.
__________________
Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics. |
28 April 2013, 05:00 PM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 461
|
New, plenty. Vintage, few.
New Rolex watch, plenty. Authentic vintage Rolex watch, a few. I keep the vintage and not the new one which you can buy at anytime.
|
27 April 2013, 07:10 AM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,239
|
If you love vintage, keep it and put the original bezel insert back in...
If you don't, trade it |
27 April 2013, 07:29 AM | #12 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,268
|
For me that would be crazy, I had a gmtIIC and sold it and got a vintage sub. Never would I go back ;)
|
28 April 2013, 01:46 AM | #13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Paradis
Location: Sweden
Watch: Sub.1680/ Datejust
Posts: 885
|
+1......= no Vintage is Vintage.......!!!
__________________
|
27 April 2013, 07:36 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: Pete
Location: Arizona
Watch: ing Duke bball
Posts: 1,488
|
Not trying to stoke any fires, but are you sure it's a 68? Earliest known examples are from 69 and of course they're red. I can accept a dial change such as yours but not a 68. Do you mind posting the first few digits of your serial number.
Pete Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse spelling, punctuation, and brevity. |
27 April 2013, 08:30 AM | #15 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Aaron
Location: CT/NYC
Watch: ing the time!
Posts: 7,001
|
Quote:
|
|
27 April 2013, 09:28 AM | #16 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: Pete
Location: Arizona
Watch: ing Duke bball
Posts: 1,488
|
I've read the same things too. I believe they started producing them that early, and I know of a few early prototypes that have gone out are from before 1969, but Ii have never seen a red sub as we know it with a case back earlier than 1969. Now, I'm just a novice compared to folks like John, Jed, Ken, Clay, and others.......so it's quite possible I'm wrong.
|
27 April 2013, 07:54 AM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Real Name: Jay
Location: TEXAS
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 7,648
|
Tough call for me no. I do understand the lure.
|
27 April 2013, 08:02 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 398
|
Trade it.
Sell the GMTII-C and buy a better 1680. :) The other guy is crazier if he wants trade straight up for yours.. |
27 April 2013, 08:00 AM | #19 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Real Name: Drew
Location: lafayette, La
Posts: 26
|
Corretion i am sorry i believe it is a 1978 serial number starts with 619****
|
27 April 2013, 08:07 AM | #20 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: Pete
Location: Arizona
Watch: ing Duke bball
Posts: 1,488
|
Quote:
Pete |
|
27 April 2013, 12:17 PM | #21 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: wil
Location: miami,fl
Watch: rolex 1675
Posts: 146
|
I bought a gmt 16750 in 2000 for $1,300 and sold it several years later, I also bought a rolex 16753 two tone for 1,800 about 4 years ago and sold it. And up to this day I regret selling them to buy newer rolexes.
|
27 April 2013, 12:26 PM | #22 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Sea Dweller
Posts: 8,561
|
It's not Red, I'd do the trade....
|
27 April 2013, 06:13 PM | #23 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,298
|
I'd keep the old sub - vintage rules!
|
27 April 2013, 10:09 PM | #24 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Earth
Watch: Air-King 5500
Posts: 2,620
|
By all means keep the 1680!
|
28 April 2013, 12:22 AM | #25 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,615
|
I know I'm a little late to the thread. If the watch was from 1968, it would likely be one of the first 1680's ever made...a truly rare find. However, as you said it is from 1978. Then there are as many reasons to do the trade vs not doing it. I would scratch the itch and see what happens. You can always find another 1680 of you like.
Full disclosure: I wear a GmtC 5 days out of 7.
__________________
|
28 April 2013, 12:30 AM | #26 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: Pete
Location: Arizona
Watch: ing Duke bball
Posts: 1,488
|
Quote:
|
|
28 April 2013, 04:55 AM | #27 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,615
|
Pete I'm pretty tough on watches during the week. On the weekends I try to take it easy with one of my 5513's or Tudor MN.
__________________
|
28 April 2013, 12:45 PM | #28 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2010
Real Name: Chris
Location: Cen-Cal
Watch: 16610
Posts: 869
|
Scratch the itch, or you will always wonder 'what if'.
|
28 April 2013, 01:15 PM | #29 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2006
Real Name: Bill
Location: Austin, Texas, US
Watch: GMT-IIC
Posts: 398
|
If the watches had the same value today, I'd say keep the vintage. Why? Because if you fell into another $7500 tomorrow, you could walk into any Rolex dealer and buy a GMT-IIC. But you'd have to hunt for the correct vintage and take the usual precautions buying it.
I love my GMT-IIC, so (on the other hand) I think you'll be happy with it as a daily wear if you choose to swap. Besides, if the swap is monetarily in your favor, you aren't really losing, you are gaining.
__________________
Bill 1984 DateJust 16013 2012 GMTII-C 116710LN 2013 Tudor Black Bay 79220R 2014 Milgauss 116400 Wife: 2015 Lady-Datejust 179160 |
28 April 2013, 01:31 PM | #30 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Shanghai
Watch: Too many to tell
Posts: 522
|
You say it yourself, that 1680 is special to you. By all means do not trade it. It might not be the most perfect 1680 under the sky, but has clear significance to you. You can jump into a GMTIIC any time you wish in the future. They are not scarce watches, and price will not sky rocket.
Once the "kick-in" effect of a new piece wears out, you will regret selling the old man. Even if you can seemingly made a few hundreds in the trade. Don't. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.