Worth it to buy vintage parts for my GMT?

[EdipisReks]

I own a December 1968 GMT Master that my father bought in Saigon in January 1970. He was an air traffic controller with the 101st airborne, so this was certainly a tool watch for him. He always had it serviced by Rolex, and pieces of it have been replaced over time. I own the complete box and papers for the watch, and most of the service papers. I inherited the watch in 2006 when he died, and it was my first Rolex (though not my last, as I've owned half a dozen since, and currently own two others).

The faded original Pepsi bezel insert was replaced first, in the early 80s, with a black insert (my father chose black, for whatever reason), the crown and tube were replaced in the early 90s, and the dial and hands were replaced in the late 90s. My father refused to allow Rolex to put in what was then the "current dial" (i.e. a dial with white gold markers), and the dial that was installed was a luminova dial that was marked Swiss T<25. I'm assuming that the hands were whatever was the then current service hands. The late 90s service is the one that I don't have the papers for, so I have to go by my memory (I was in high school at the time, and I remember my father talking about the dial). My understanding is that the Tritium marked luminova dial is fairly rare, as far as service dials go.

I will never sell this watch, and I love wearing it, but I've given some thought to trying to return it to its original condition. I bought what I believe to be the correct Pepsi insert (late 60s NOS from a watchmaker who was retiring and selling his stock of parts, and whom I trust), as I always think of the watch as having a Pepsi bezel, since that's what I saw on his wrist when I was a kid. That bezel insert was fairly pricey, but was worth it to me.

I'm not sure what vintage hands and dials go for, so I'm less sure of their worth to me. I do enjoy the luminova dial... I certainly wish that Rolex returned parts, but Montblanc hasn't returned parts when I've had pens worked on, so I guess I can't be that surprised. Any suggestions? Like I said, never going to sell the watch, so I'm thinking about a correct restoration just in terms of my own gratification and the desire to make the watch "right."

[linesiders]

Sure, figure out what you want, decide what parts you want, collect them over time, and once all is collected, have a good watchmaker (not Rolex) install them with a service.

[EdipisReks]

I know that there is a certain amount of variability in the vintage parts. Any guidance on what to get for a 1675 like mine? I'm happy to take pics or provide documentation, if that helps.

[springer]

The serial number would help. Also, I would like to see some photos of the watch and the accessories that came with it. It's always nice to see a "one owner" watch and what came with it when new.

If it is indeed a late 1960s GMT, it would have come with the Mark I dial. Decent dials start at around $750 and go up depending on condition. A nice set of matching tritium hands would be in the neighborhood of $350 to $750 - again, depending on condition.

Hope that helps you out!

[EdipisReks]

It does help me out! I can takes pics when I get a chance when the light is better. When I say I have the complete papers, I'm exaggerating: I don't have the paper sleeve that went over the box, and probably plenty of other small things. I do have the green tag, the calibration paper, the user manual (with the cutout pages sent in for registration and with my dad's name in it), the box, the receipt, the plastic sleeve that the papers went into, the satin/cardboard "watch holder," the original polishing cloth, and that's it I think. The box is falling apart, and at some point my father superglued it back together. Here is a picture of the calibration page that has the serial number on it:

Click image to enlarge

[EdipisReks]

$1500+ for a dial and hands is less than I was expecting. Not something I'd do immediately, but I'll start looking.

[EdipisReks]

I also have the fountain pen that he wrote with on that paper, btw. :) It's nothing special, but I'm happy to have it.

[eightbore]

Frankly, I would keep the watch as he kept it....and save all the documents.

[rodwatch69]

Any idea what the inside of the caseback is stamped? Is it 68 or 69?

[watchcrank]

Nice family memories of a first owner watch. Pictures will help and serial numbers too.
Most parts as said above are not to expensive and if you look around where you live you might find less money. My family is from the Middletown, Trenton area and there used to be good pickings for parts at local venues. Good luck, M

[Tools]

Originally Posted by EdipisReks

. . .

I'm not sure what vintage hands and dials go for, so I'm less sure of their worth to me. I do enjoy the luminova dial... I certainly wish that Rolex returned parts, but Montblanc hasn't returned parts when I've had pens worked on, so I guess I can't be that surprised. Any suggestions? Like I said, never going to sell the watch, so I'm thinking about a correct restoration just in terms of my own gratification and the desire to make the watch "right."

This is what it boils down to, your own self-gratification.

Personally I may have got a much cheaper RSC insert if it was one I wore quite a bit... It was a good choice to have kept the original dial.

You have a watch with personal history and original family documents. These can raise the value more than putting on non-original "period" parts; replacements are still replacements.

[EdipisReks]

Thanks everyone, I have a lot to think about.

I'm not sure what the case back is stamped, roadwatch69, as I've never removed it. It's probably time I picked up one of the sticky case back balls...

[Tools]

Originally Posted by EdipisReks

Thanks everyone, I have a lot to think about.

I'm not sure what the case back is stamped, roadwatch69, as I've never removed it. It's probably time I picked up one of the sticky case back balls...

The caseback stamp would give you a better indication of when the watch was "made".

You are using the date the Chronometer test was done on the movement (Dec 1968). That could be a long way before it was finally assembled and sent to market..

[watch_guy]

We are grateful for your fathers service to our country

[EdipisReks]

Originally Posted by watch_guy

We are grateful for your fathers service to our country

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Tools

The caseback stamp would give you a better indication of when the watch was "made".

You are using the date the Chronometer test was done on the movement (Dec 1968). That could be a long way before it was finally assembled and sent to market..

Gotcha. That would explain why I always thought the watch was a '69, until I received the box and papers. I bought a friction ball online, so I'll open it up as soon as it arrives.

[brandrea]

What a great piece of history you have there. Best of luck on bringing it back to "right" for you.

[EdipisReks]

Originally Posted by brandrea

What a great piece of history you have there. Best of luck on bringing it back to "right" for you.

Thanks!

[EdipisReks]

So, this is how the watch looks right at this moment:

Click to embiggen

I haven't had a chance to dig out the box and papers, but I should have time this weekend. I can also take photos of the watch with a real camera, instead of my iPhone 6S, if there is anything in particular that would help determine the correct parts.

[EdipisReks]

So, I bought a sticky ball, specifically to open this watch up. I could not get it open. I couldn't get my Tudor Big Block open either, but I could open by DateJust and my Explorer II. I want to see the inside of the GMT case back enough that I'm willing to spend some more money on tools, but I'm no watchmaker, and I don't want to spend too much on this.

Are there recommended inexpensive tools for opening Rolex casebooks that are more likely to work on this than the sticky ball? I still do plan on taking pics of the box and papers and accessories, I've just been very busy during the day, when the light is good.

[RC2]

I would not open the case. There is no reason. If U want to go to a watchmaker that does this sort of thing for a profession.

[EdipisReks]

I don't want to bother my local guy just to open the caseback to take a picture. He's very busy, and is much too nice to me as it is, given how much work he has on his plate. I've done some basic work on other mechanical watches, including regulation (it ain't that hard, certainly much easier than straightening half the pins in an LGA1366 socket, after an idiot [who wasn't me] mashed his finger into it, something that I've done as well), I just don't have the proper tools to get into screw back watches reliably.

And there is a reason: I want to see the date stamped on the inside of the caseback.

[Mark020]

Pay him 10 bucks cash. 1 minute to open it, you make pics for 5 mins, 1 minute to close is. Fair deal.

[Pharmlou]

The watch looks nice as it is and its evolution to current state mirrors your fathers life with it. You dont need to change anything. If you want it to look its age I would suggest a nicely faded insert. Enjoy.

[lhanddds]

Originally Posted by Pharmlou

The watch looks nice as it is and its evolution to current state mirrors your fathers life with it. You dont need to change anything. If you want it to look its age I would suggest a nicely faded insert. Enjoy.

This, if you are interested in creating a watch you have in your mind's eye, go for it. If you want the watch that your father wore, leave it alone. Adding a bunch of non- original parts to a watch, is just that. Sometimes it's own personal history or journey is worth preserving. JMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frosty]

Very nice watch! I would also leave it alone to keep the memories.

[droptopman]

Cool story. I am thankful to your father for his service. The watch looks good, I would leave it like it is. As stated you could always add a faded fat font insert to it. If you have your heart set on an original vintage GMT, be much easier to buy one and keep this one as your father left it. Great memories and sentimental value.

[iclick]

Originally Posted by EdipisReks

I own a December 1968 GMT Master that my father bought in Saigon in January 1970.

I feel compelled to reply to this thread because I feel a close bond with your father. I bought my GMT in Jan. 1971 in Hong Kong at the China Fleet Club (U.S. Naval Exchange) while on R&R, serving in Viet Nam. Unlike your father, I never let RSC service my watch--not for any other reason than they were always more expensive than competent local watchmakers in the various places I've resided in since. My first service cost me $35 from an AD while Rolex wanted $50. I was an impoverished grad student back then and a $15 saving was nothing to sneeze at, as it bought lots of beer. None of the watchmakers who serviced the watch over the years ever suggested that I replace the hands, dial, or bezel--but if they had I would not have hesitated to give them the go-ahead. I'm glad the topic never came up for discussion.

Until a few years ago I had not the first inclination to keep the parts of the watch original, and it's only a miracle that the watch still has the original Mark 1 dial, hands, date wheel, and fat-font bezel. To my knowledge only the stem tube, mainspring, and possibly some other internal parts were replaced during services over the years.

When the original bezel ring and insert fell off in about 1980 while doing yard work I bought replacements (not a fat-font), which I probably would've done eventually anyway because the original one had already begun to fade. Fade is a bad thing, I thought. Three years later I found the bezel in a flower bed outside and thought briefly about tossing it, as it had faded even more by that time in the sun and weather, but instead threw it unprotected in a small box of assorted screws and other small objects. I wore the second bezel for the next 30 years and only about two years ago finally put the original back in its rightful place, on the watch. Like your father, in the interim I replaced the bezel insert with a black one (cheap Ebay item) for a short time.

I replaced the bracelet after 5-6 years because the original 7836 folded-link wasn't holding up well, going with a Jubilee instead. With absolutely no awareness of any future need, for some unknown reason I put the worn-out 7836 in my safe, but there's bad news: In an act of total mental breakdown I tossed it in the trash about 10 years ago thinking it was of no possible further value to me or anyone else. The good news is that only a couple of weeks ago I acquired a very nice Michael Young restored 7836 bracelet with a properly dated clasp sans endlinks from another TRF member. Just last week I bought a mismatched 7836 with Jubilee clasp and 280 endlinks for a good price on Ebay, just to get those hard-to-find 280 ends, and the watch is now looking like its been born again, but with some honorable aging. Voila!

I kept the box until 10 years ago when I sold a TT GMT on Ebay and threw the box in the mix since it was the only one I had, thinking it would enhance the watch's appeal. That was yet another instance of judgmental breakdown, so I'm now looking for a replacement, which fortunately pop up from time to time on Ebay.

My watch is #2.32m (~1969) with "IV 68" caseback and came with a chronometer certificate with punched SN, but mine isn't nearly as detailed as yours. They must've made a change somewhere in the interim.

For the first 35 years or so the watch was almost a permanent fixture on my wrist, and in 45 years has survived three motorcycle wrecks, one airplane crash, and many other indignities that make me wonder how it has managed to look as good as it does. Watches come and watches go, but this one will never be sold. Like you and your dad's watch, we're mated for life. Good luck to you in your quest to get your GMT back to original!

[EdipisReks]

Thank you for your story, iclick. Did your buddies make fun of you for spending so much on a watch, when you bought it in 1971? My dad's buddies did, because they were able to buy some much cheaper watches that, by then, also had a GMT function. I rather imagine the three hundred something he spent turned out to be the better investment, long term!

Everybody has convinced me, I'm going to leave the watch alone. I do want to see the caseback, but I'll wait until I'm going to go to my local guy for something else, and have him open it quick like. The idea of just buying another "complete" 1675 has merit. That way I could put this one in a safe deposit box. My insurance would certainly let me buy another GMT Master if something happened to it, but I could never get my dad's watch back.

[iclick]

Originally Posted by EdipisReks

Thank you for your story, iclick. Did your buddies make fun of you for spending so much on a watch, when you bought it in 1971? My dad's buddies did, because they were able to buy some much cheaper watches that, by then, also had a GMT function. I rather imagine the three hundred something he spent turned out to be the better investment, long term!

No, I don't recall being chided for the cost of the watch, as it really wasn't that much. I think your dad probably paid less than $300-ish for his watch, as mine was $140 from the U.S. Naval Exchange in Hong Kong. At that time (around Jan. 1971) in Vietnam the same watch was $180 through the Army exchange and was $255 MSRP in the U.S. I did get some good-natured harassment from a friend who bought a similar Seiko in Viet Nam at about the same time, and he was amused that my watch didn't have a quick-set date feature like his did.

Everybody has convinced me, I'm going to leave the watch alone. I do want to see the caseback, but I'll wait until I'm going to go to my local guy for something else, and have him open it quick like. The idea of just buying another "complete" 1675 has merit. That way I could put this one in a safe deposit box. My insurance would certainly let me buy another GMT Master if something happened to it, but I could never get my dad's watch back.

I've elevated my GMT to a privileged status and it is no longer a daily wearer like it was for decades. That's partly because of its great sentimental value and partly its ever-rising monetary value. I now have three Tudors that take turns bearing that guidon. Instead of burying the GMT in a safe-deposit box, why not wear it on special occasions and buy another watch to take up the daily-grinder chores? Or, maybe more than one.

I sympathize with you about leaving it alone, as that's the way your dad left it. OTOH if you decided to restore it to its original state I couldn't blame you for that either.

[EdipisReks]

Originally Posted by iclick

No, I don't recall being chided for the cost of the watch, as it really wasn't that much. I think your dad probably paid less than $300-ish for his watch, as mine was $140 from the U.S. Naval Exchange in Hong Kong. At that time (around Jan. 1971) in Vietnam the same watch was $180 through the Army exchange and was $255 MSRP in the U.S. I did get some good-natured harassment from a friend who bought a similar Seiko in Viet Nam at about the same time, and he was amused that my watch didn't have a quick-set date feature like his did.

That makes sense. That's funny about the quickset thing. I think it was Seikos that his buddies bought. He's been dead for almost 10 years, and sometimes it's hard to remember the exact details of some of his stories.

I've elevated my GMT to a privileged status and it is no longer a daily wearer like it was for decades. That's partly because of its great sentimental value and partly its ever-rising monetary value. I now have three Tudors that take turns bearing that guidon. Instead of burying the GMT in a safe-deposit box, why not wear it on special occasions and buy another watch to take up the daily-grinder chores? Or, maybe more than one.

I have a bunch of watches at this point, and I probably wear the GMT Master once a week or so. I'm just concerned about the place burning down or being burgled.