1961 Rolex GMT-Master - Original Dial or Later Dial Question.

[MJF]

Hello and thanks for looking.

I have a Rolex GMT-Master with a serial number of 695XXX giving it, from what I can see, a manufacture date of 1961. The case number is 1675 and the movement is a 1560. The case back is stamped II.61.

I have a question regarding the dial I am hoping some of the experts could help me with.

The dial looks to me like one listed in the reference section and described as a matte, 1st generation "Mark 2".

A friend had someone they consider to be an expert look at it who told them that it was not the original dial. They may be right, but I would like some second opinions from other experts.

So my question is could this be the original dial or is it a replacement from Rolex?

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

[IMG][/IMG]

[OmegaBear]

i'm no expert, but a 1961 PCG (pointed crown guards aka cornino) GMT should have a gilt dial, not a matte one...it does seem to me to be a latter/service replacement.

[datejust24]

Service dial and hands...killer insert though!!

[Michael M.]

Later dial.

[Tom1675]

Yeah Mark II

[lee fowler]

As mentioned it has a later dial. If the watch needed a replacement dial they would have used the current dial available which in your case was a Mk2 dial. It was probably done in the early to mid 70's as the hands and date wheel have also been changed or it could have just been put together using random parts! As mentioned killer insert as well.

[japenney]

Even tho the dial is replaced that is a real beauty.

[Sky21]

Originally this watch would have also had the small GMT hand so as stated above the hands were replaced at the same time as the dial in the early to mid 70s.

[southtexas]

Depending on asking price, could be a good buy. Finding correct dial and hands will be next to impossible, and would be very expensive.

[swish77]

Beautiful watch! Leave it alone! Yes, the hands and dial were replaced during a service, but so what? Great tritium patina, and overall it's stunning.

Sure, the original gilt dial/hands would be better (and more valuable) to have, but I never like to use the term "incorrect" or "wrong." What you have on your watch is 100 percent "correct." Your GMT was serviced and Rolex replaced what were probably damaged/aged parts. That was long before us watch nuts came along!

[spoilsofwar01]

as mentioned before its most likely to be a 1970's service replacement, and as part of the watches history its beautiful, I have a 1968 5513 with service replacement dial and hands from the 70's and yes it did concern me until I came to the forum, the positive comments and support from the members made me realize what a great item I own, cherish it mate I would.

[springer]

Originally Posted by swish77

Beautiful watch! Leave it alone! Yes, the hands and dial were replaced during a service, but so what? Great tritium patina, and overall it's stunning.

Sure, the original gilt dial/hands would be better (and more valuable) to have, but I never like to use the term "incorrect" or "wrong." What you have on your watch is 100 percent "correct." Your GMT was serviced and Rolex replaced what were probably damaged/aged parts. That was long before us watch nuts came along!

I disagree. The watch is not 100% correct. It has replacement parts and unless something changed last night that I am unaware of, most collectors and hobbyists like there watches correct - like when they were manufactured.

Is there anything wrong with replacement parts...absolutely not. Most of these vintage watches have replacement parts, both externally and internally. Calling it "correct" - it is not, at least not by any definition used to describe vintage watches that I have come to know.

Visually, the dial (Mark II), hands and date wheel have been replaced at some point. The insert appears to be original.

Enjoy your watch!

[swish77]

Originally Posted by springer

I disagree. The watch is not 100% correct. It has replacement parts and unless something changed last night that I am unaware of, most collectors and hobbyists like there watches correct - like when they were manufactured.

Is there anything wrong with replacement parts...absolutely not. Most of these vintage watches have replacement parts, both externally and externally. Calling it "correct" - it is not, at least not by any definition used to describe vintage watches that I have come to know.

Just semantics. Perhaps it would be better to say "period correct or incorrect," instead of just "correct." Because if you say something is "not correct" the implication is that it's "wrong." As long as the watch and all its parts are authentic Rolex AND everything is known about (original and/or service), there's nothing wrong with that.

What bugs me is the collector/hobbyist snobbery with parts and watches (not anyone on this thread). Sometimes it's OK to have a polished watch or replacement parts. The owner should still enjoy his/her vintage watch without worrrying whether the font is correct on an insert, or the slight patina variation means that maybe, just maybe the minute hand might have been replaced 30 years ago. Yes, I freak out over such details, but not everyone who owns a vintage Rolex is an OCD collector/hobbyist.

[spoilsofwar01]

Originally Posted by swish77

Beautiful watch! Leave it alone! Yes, the hands and dial were replaced during a service, but so what? Great tritium patina, and overall it's stunning.

Sure, the original gilt dial/hands would be better (and more valuable) to have, but I never like to use the term "incorrect" or "wrong." What you have on your watch is 100 percent "correct." Your GMT was serviced and Rolex replaced what were probably damaged/aged parts. That was long before us watch nuts came along!

absolutely true!

[Wesley Crusher]

Replacement dial and hands, but the patina is wonderful. I would not be concerned.

Your insert is sublime. Great watch!

[watchcrank]

Nice watch, not period correct but still a very nice watch. enjoy it, M

[MJF]

I would like to thank you all for your input and quick responses. I really do appreciate the wealth of info I found here.

Thanks again.