1978 GMT Master 1675

[Amphib44]

I'm new to the forum, and was hoping to get some feedback on a GMT Master that I have had for about 25 years. It's been serviced once during my ownership, and to be honest, I don't wear it that much ('85 Speedmaster every day...).
Ref. # 1675
Serial # 515****
the bracelet has 7-70 stamped on the inside of the clasp.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

[MorningTundra]

That's a beautiful piece. I'm sure it'll find a lot of admirers around here. Worth a pretty penny, I'm sure


Sent from my cracked, broken, hand wound Phone

[Micha]

Springer will chime in here shortly...

[OmegaBear]

beautiful!!!

[Tom1675]

MKII dial, great safe-queen orange patina. Your pics are a bit tight so I cant speak to the case but nice watch. Your dial is in GREAT shape and I think within reason for the serial number.

I don't think a 5m serial should have that stamp on the clasp but maybe its within the margin of error for the way Rolex put these together, unless you bought it as a replacement. One of the experts will chime in soon and confirm or correct that statement... Also, did they replace the insert when you had it serviced?

[swish77]

Bracelet is earlier, based on the serial number. The 5.1 mil. would put it around 1977, and even with a couple of years latitude, it's still earlier. Nothing wrong with that. Rivet bracelets are super cool, no matter the year.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Tom1675

MKII dial, great safe-queen orange patina. Your pics are a bit tight so I cant speak to the case but nice watch. Your dial is in GREAT shape and I think within reason for the serial number.

I don't think a 5m serial should have that stamp on the clasp but maybe its within the margin of error for the way Rolex put these together, unless you bought it as a replacement. One of the experts will chime in soon and confirm or correct that statement... Also, did they replace the insert when you had it serviced?

Just curious, why is the clasp incorrect for a 5 million serial number?

[Amphib44]

It has been recommended that I post some pictures of the case back and bracelet. I apologize in advance for the poor quality.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

[Tom1675]

Originally Posted by springer

Just curious, why is the clasp incorrect for a 5 million serial number?

Foot in mouth, i have done more reading... thanks for the clarity...

[Amphib44]

So can anyone give me some insight as to the specifics of this watch? Does it have the correct bits and pieces for its manufacture date/serial number? Any historical context or details about the bracelet?

I know there is a wealth of info within the forum, but when I look at the pictures available of, for example, the 1675 dial over time, they mostly look the same to me (novice).

Anyway, I'm very interested in learning more about this GMT. Thanks

[springer]

Originally Posted by Amphib44

So can anyone give me some insight as to the specifics of this watch? Does it have the correct bits and pieces for its manufacture date/serial number? Any historical context or details about the bracelet?

I know there is a wealth of info within the forum, but when I look at the pictures available of, for example, the 1675 dial over time, they mostly look the same to me (novice).

Anyway, I'm very interested in learning more about this GMT. Thanks

The serial number is very high for a Mark II dial. I would think at 5.1 million, it would be a Mark V or Mark IV or even an elusive radial dial. The bracelet was changed at some point to an earlier one. As others mentioned , the bezel insert appears to be a later blue-back service insert.

[sensui]

I don't know the tidbits about correctness per say....but man that is a smoking example of a 1675.....great looking patina and the watch seems to be in great condition.

[saskmh]

Looks like it has a few good gouges in the case sides but overall it's one gorgeous watch.

[sea-dweller]

It's very classy!

[saskmh]

I think the consensus is that aside from the service insert everything looks good and original. The dial looks great. Case has a couple of gouges but that is just character for some people. You have a really nice example there!

[Amphib44]

Well, I think the consensus is that I have a 1978 GMT Master with an earlier Mk2 dial. I don't know when the dial was swapped, but certainly before my ownership.
I have owned the watch for 25 years, and have no intention of getting rid of it, I was simply curious about what, primarily, made the dial a Mk2.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Amphib44

Well, I think the consensus is that I have a 1978 GMT Master with an earlier Mk2 dial. I don't know when the dial was swapped, but certainly before my ownership.
I have owned the watch for 25 years, and have no intention of getting rid of it, I was simply curious about what, primarily, made the dial a Mk2.

All the dials have their own characteristics and the Mark designation further identifies the given name for a particular dial. Most of the various GMT dials have a particular coronet, fonts or dial layout that differentiates it from one Mark dial to the other Mark dials.

If you need to magnify your page to enlarge something on the internet whether it is a complete page or image on a page, hold down the control and then hit the + key once to enlarge. If you keep your finger on the control key and keep hitting the + plus key ... it will continue to enlarge the page or image. The more you push the + key, the more it will be enlarged. To reduce the size, hit the control and - key, keep hitting the - key to get your page back to actual size.

[Amphib44]

Is it difficult to source the correct MkIV dial?

[roh123]

I also know of odd mk2 dials popping up in early 5m cases. Not that I'd persobally get one but I am familiar with it. For what it is worth..

[springer]

Originally Posted by roh123

I also know of odd mk2 dials popping up in early 5m cases. Not that I'd persobally get one but I am familiar with it. For what it is worth..

I am now familiar with it too!!!!

[RC2]

Still looks nice I think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Member of Nylon Nation

[opzxkl]

Mark 2

Serial Number Range: 28xxxxx-39xxxxx, 505xxxx-519xxxx*

Notes: The Mark 2 dial is very well balanced and has a nice boldness to the font so that people across the room could see your watch said ROLEX. The coronet is very similar to that of the Type C / Mark 0 but the ROLEX font is thicker and with a much different character to the E, amongst others. Oddly, the L and E maintain their close relationship relative to the rest of the word, similar to the Mark 1 / 1.5. The ‘oyster perpetual’ and lower text retain the heavy serifs of the Mark 1.5. The lume is flat and does not maintain the waffling of the late Mark 1.

*There have been several original owner examples with Mark 2 dials and low 5 million SN’s in this range. It is possible that Rolex used some left over MK2 dials in these cases. Some have said that this was a service dial used in that period but that would only make sense if those watches had a service case and not a service dial as, if it had a Mk 2 as a service dial, it would be on serial numbers earlier than the normal dial/SN rage (i.e. you have an earlier dial that was replaced with a MK2 at service). That is not the case here and if they were service cases why would they all have MK2 dials – we would have probably seen a variety of earlier dials and we do not have any knowledge of this range being used as a service case (though sure, it’s possible). This is a syllogism and not proof positive though, so look to the merits of the watch and not only my conjecture.

Source: gmtmaster1675.com