Comments on this 1675? Yay or Nay?

[anirudh.412]

After venturing into Rolex with my 14060, I am looking at getting a 1675. This particular example caught my eye. I am guessing its one of those movements where rolex used the 1570 bridge even though the movement is a 1575? Also, should the case back not say 1675 instead of 16750? The hand set, insert and dial are all claimed to be original. I would really appreciate any opinion about it.

TIA

[CharlieMae]

you need to see the engravings between the lugs. get the model and serial numbers and then we can go from there. Dial, hands and insert are original.

[anirudh.412]

Originally Posted by CharlieMae

you need to see the engravings between the lugs. get the model and serial numbers and then we can go from there. Dial, hands and insert are original.

It's a 1977 5.1 mil 1675

The other side of the lugs is uploaded in the OP

[anirudh.412]

Also, I think I see some corrosion beneath the bezel? How easily is that taken care of?

[aaamax]

Originally Posted by anirudh.412

Also, I think I see some corrosion beneath the bezel? How easily is that taken care of?

One full service and it will be as good as new… that is, as good as new as you want it…lol.

[TimeToGo]

Looks like a very nice watch.

The case back was changed at some point.. Also looks like a newer bezel..

[anirudh.412]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

Looks like a very nice watch.

The case back was changed at some point.. Also looks like a newer bezel..

All 1675 have the same generic back, yes? So one can be sourced for this? Also, what makes you think the bezel is not original and a replacement? Trying to learn things from you knowledgeable folks here.

Thank you for all your replies

[TimeToGo]

Originally Posted by anirudh.412

All 1675 have the same generic back, yes? So one can be sourced for this? Also, what makes you think the bezel is not original and a replacement? Trying to learn things from you knowledgeable folks here.

Thank you for all your replies

If you purchase this watch, have it pressure tested. If it passes, I would not be concerned with changing the caseback. The caseback would just say 1675 (no year stamp) for this time period.

To me, it is not a big deal with the bezel but it does not appear consistent with the battle scars of the watch - IMHO

[buenosdias]

To me it looks like a very nice 1675 Maxi MKV (others would call it MKIV....doesn't matter...all correct MaxiDial...periodcorrect!).

Great faded insert, correct bezel, great vanilla patina on dial and hands! All period-correct.

Case is very fat and symmetric. Movement looks clean.
I'm not an caseback-expert, but I think it is a service-caseback. Would not concern me personal......

If price is not toooo high I would go for it!

.
.
.
.
.

[anirudh.412]

Originally Posted by buenosdias

To me it looks like a very nice 1675 Maxi MKV (others would call it MKIV....doesn't matter...all correct MaxiDial...periodcorrect!).

Great faded insert, correct bezel, great vanilla patina on dial and hands! All period-correct.

Case is very fat and symmetric. Movement looks clean.
I'm not an caseback-expert, but I think it is a service-caseback. Would not concern me personal......

If price is not toooo high I would go for it!

.
.
.
.
.

Price is $7000. Too high, high, correct? (No options for low, too low... Coz there's no such thing ;))

Yeah, I think it's a MKIV myself :)

[Vincent65]

Looks good to me - replaced case-back, but what's a zero between friends.

[anirudh.412]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Looks good to me - replaced case-back, but what's a zero between friends.

Hehe

[RC2]

7 k. I think high but market is nuts now. Probably more mid 6

[TimeToGo]

Take into account a service as well...

[anirudh.412]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

Take into account a service as well...

Yep, there's always that minor thing I have seen MY's magic on bracelets several times on these forums, does he do an equally good job with a service as well?

[TimeToGo]

Originally Posted by anirudh.412

Yep, there's always that minor thing I have seen MY's magic on bracelets several times on these forums, does he do an equally good job with a service as well?

I would not send this overseas (unless you are already there). There are plenty of capable watchmakers in the US, as well as in your State of Florida..

[anirudh.412]

Will be visiting HK around the end of this month. This watch comes out of HK too

[MitchSteel]

Nice example

[PoderEsBueno]

Looks nice, good luck

[bzabodyn]

I think we all know how it's from and even though there are mixed feelings regarding this particular seller I've bought from him with excellent results. I would ask him about timekeeping as when I bought mine he showed me the readouts off a timing machine he has.

Good luck!

Brandon

[springer]

That is not a Mark IV or Mark V dial.

I have seen it before and have yet to formulate an opinion on this dial. Below are examples of the W-4 (Mark IV) and W-5 (Mark V) dials.

As others noted, the 16750 case back is not correct for the watch.

[anirudh.412]

Originally Posted by springer

That is not a Mark IV or Mark V dial.

I have seen it before and have yet to formulate an opinion on this dial. Below are examples of the W-4 (Mark IV) and W-5 (Mark V) dials.

As others noted, the 16750 case back is not correct for the watch.

Meaning have you come across THIS PARTICULAR dial before or dials like these in general? Would such a non conformity in any way mean I should reconsider my purchase decision?

[anirudh.412]

Originally Posted by springer

That is not a Mark IV or Mark V dial.

I have seen it before and have yet to formulate an opinion on this dial. Below are examples of the W-4 (Mark IV) and W-5 (Mark V) dials.

As others noted, the 16750 case back is not correct for the watch.

Also, would you kindly point out why the dial is not a Mark IV or V?

TIA

[springer]

Originally Posted by anirudh.412

Also, would you kindly point out why the dial is not a Mark IV or V?

TIA

If you compare the Rolex coronet from the Mark IV and V dials, both are clearly different than the GMT dial in the first post. Also, the letters C and E from the word CERTIFIED do not line up directly underneath the C and H in the word CHRONOMETER like found on a Mark IV dial but more closely resembles the offset to the right like found on the Mark V dial. But, it is not a Mark V dial because the coronets are clearly different on each dial.

Take some time and compare the Mark IV and Mark V dials to the one in the first post - pay particular attention to font size, coronet styles and notice how the letters align with letters above and below them in each dial.

[buenosdias]

Originally Posted by springer

That is not a Mark IV or Mark V dial.

I have seen it before and have yet to formulate an opinion on this dial. Below are examples of the W-4 (Mark IV) and W-5 (Mark V) dials.

As others noted, the 16750 case back is not correct for the watch.

Hi John,

I really respect your experience concerning GMTs, but this time I'm not 100 percent with you.

IMHO here we have an all correct Maxi from the end 70s (with service 16750 caseback).

Please let me explain my point of view:

I've seen many many 1675 in the last years and my observation is the following: The dial shown by the thread starter is to find often! and always in the 5 Million serial range. I've NEVER seen it in any other serial range!

The dial shown by you (W5) is also to be found in 5 Mio serials, but if've seen many many of these dials in ALL different serial ranges.

This, and the fact that this W5 dial is extremely near the typo and allignement of the first matte 16750 dials makes me think 2 things:

1. The W5 dial is a late 70s, beginning 80s matte tritium service dial

or

2. The W5 dial and the dial shown by the tread starter plus the W4 dial are the last 3 dials, mounted in he 1675.


I'm open for any new ideas and opinions!

.
.
.

[PoderEsBueno]

Do you think it could be another version of Mark IV dial John? I have also seen some examples of this "AHC" alignment on '77/'78 1675 dials, so could it be possible there were two dial versions for these years?

[morafa4]

That's a pretty wide looking O - just sayin'.

As Springer stated, none of the Marks have that dial -- I'd say proceed with caution. Ps I don't frequent the FS section much, so apologies if I'm poopooing on someones sale :/

[anirudh.412]

After close inspection of the pictures, I concur with both Morafa and Springer. Seems odd given the seller's reputation. I think it's quite obvious whom this is from.

[springer]

Originally Posted by anirudh.412

After close inspection of the pictures, I concur with both Morafa and Springer. Seems odd given the seller's reputation. I think it's quite obvious whom this is from.

While not pointing fingers at anyone, I can say that I have seen this dial a couple times at most. I have no opinion one way or the other since it is hard for me, and I assume for others, to offer an opinion without actually examining one. It could be a variation of a Mark V dial and it may not be a variation. My main point earlier was that it is not a Mark IV or Mark V GMT 1675 dial. Below are a couple examples of known aftermarket dials which appear genuine to the casual observer, but they are not.

[anirudh.412]

Originally Posted by springer

While not pointing fingers at anyone, I can say that I have seen this dial a couple times at most. I have no opinion one way or the other since it is hard for me, and I assume for others, to offer an opinion without actually examining one. It could be a variation of a Mark V dial and it may not be a variation. My main point earlier was that it is not a Mark IV or Mark V GMT 1675 dial. Below are a couple examples of known aftermarket dials which appear genuine to the casual observer, but they are not.

Wow! Even though I have decided to let this watch go, I have learnt so much from all of you! Much appreciated! My hunt for a GMT continues...