Gmt Master 2, model 16710 holes or no holes?

[Alc]

Is there any other differences between the holes and no hole model GMT? Was looking at the 16700 but I read on the forum that the 16710 can swap out the bezel's.

[kzm40]

Both models have the same bezel inserts. Easily sourced and swapped certainly in the UK.

[tie219]

If you feel like you will swap the bracelet with straps often, then go with a holes case. It is much easier to do so.

I also believe that all no holes GMT's have SELs, while only some A and P serial holes GMTs have SELs.

[Onikage]

No holes isn't worth the premium. I say this as a no holes wearer. Condition comes first.. then the extra inserts. IMO anyway.

[henrylee]

I like having the holes in the case, very useful.

[joe100]

You can put any of the 3 bezel inserts on the 16700 but only 2 are historically correct.

[SubMarine]

Originally Posted by joe100

You can put any of the 3 bezel inserts on the 16700 but only 2 are historically correct.

Which ones? The Pepsi and Black?

[lightingball2]

now thats interesting....i have a no holes case but i do NOT have SEL's did they make some of the no holes without SEL's?

[VacherObsessive]

Holes or no holes don’t care!

[joe100]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

Which ones? The Pepsi and Black?

Yeah, Pepsi and black. The coke bezel was only ever used on the 16760 and 16710, but it will fit the 16700. Anything the 16710 can do, the 16700 can do as far as bracelets and bezel inserts, however the functionality of the watch is a bit different.

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by Onikage

No holes isn't worth the premium. I say this as a no holes wearer. Condition comes first.. then the extra inserts. IMO anyway.

Agree. Personally, I think the lug holes look better on the Submariner. On the GMT, not so much.

[bobabreath]

I like usefulness of holes, but no holes are more rare as it was only made for a few years

[jaisonline]

Originally Posted by tie219

If you feel like you will swap the bracelet with straps often, then go with a holes case. It is much easier to do so.

I also believe that all no holes GMT's have SELs, while only some A and P serial holes GMTs have SELs.

Many Y serial 16710 models have SELs w/ lug holes. Later Ys (16170T) came with no hole cases and SELs. Y serials are usually considered for the 2002 & 2003 years.

Ks also have SELs and cases with log holes. 2001 - 2002.

[jaisonline]

Major diff between 16700 and 16710 =
Different movement. 16710 have an independent 24 hr hand when setting.
Some 16710s have SELs.

http://www.gmtmasterhistory.com/gmt-...ref_16700.html
http://www.gmtmasterhistory.com/gmt-...ref_16710.html

Originally Posted by Alc

Is there any other differences between the holes and no hole model GMT? Was looking at the 16700 but I read on the forum that the 16710 can swap out the bezel's.

[Casey VP-26]

You folks are so smart.

[SubMarine]

I prefer holes, superluminova, SELs, unpolished + jubilee/oyster + Coke/Pepsi inserts

[strafer_kid]

Originally Posted by jaisonline

Major diff between 16700 and 16710 =
Different movement. 16710 have an independent 24 hr hand when setting.
Some 16710s have SELs.

http://www.gmtmasterhistory.com/gmt-...ref_16700.html
http://www.gmtmasterhistory.com/gmt-...ref_16710.html

Quick set date on the 16700 is also very useful!

[SubMarine]

It isn’t necessary. The jumping hour function supplants quickset date. The independent gmt hand of the 16710 is very important, and you lose that with the 16700.

Originally Posted by strafer_kid

Quick set date on the 16700 is also very useful!

[jaisonline]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

It isn’t necessary. The jumping hour function supplants quickset date. The independent gmt hand of the 16710 is very important, and you lose that with the 16700.

I found both features helpful but for travelers, entirely agree the independent GMT hand introduced with GMT-IIs is very important.

For folks who seldom travel or just like the GMT, the quickset date feature is more important.

[SubMarine]

The 16700 is not an actual GMT watch, since the 24 hour hand cannot be independently set. In fact, any GMT prior to the 16760 and 16710 is not a true GMT.

Originally Posted by jaisonline

I found both features helpful but for travelers, entirely agree the independent GMT hand introduced with GMT-IIs is very important.

For folks who seldom travel or just like the GMT, the quickset date feature is more important.

[Gtecko]

Originally Posted by kzm40

Both models have the same bezel inserts. Easily sourced and swapped certainly in the UK.

that's not true. the bezel for the 16700 and 16710 are unique to each series. the 16700 didn't come in coke as the 16710 came in the 3 insert, pepsi, black and coke.
GMT and GMTII have different movement as well.

[SubMarine]

No, the 16700 never came in Coke. Similarly, the 16760 never came in Pepsi or black.

Originally Posted by Gtecko

that's not true. the bezel for the 16700 and 16710 are unique to each series. the 16700 didn't come in black (LN) as the 16710 came in the 3 insert, pepsi, black and coke.
GMT and GMTII have different movement as well.

[joe100]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

The 16700 is not an actual GMT watch, since the 24 hour hand cannot be independently set. In fact, any GMT prior to the 16760 and 16710 is not a true GMT.

Lol! So let me get this straight: The watch that named the whole line, created for PanAm, to track two time zones, was in production for 29 years before the 16760 came out isn’t a GMT watch?

[joe100]

Originally Posted by Gtecko

that's not true. the bezel for the 16700 and 16710 are unique to each series. the 16700 didn't come in coke as the 16710 came in the 3 insert, pepsi, black and coke.
GMT and GMTII have different movement as well.

The 16700 did indeed come in black.

[SubMarine]

That's correct. By definition, a GMT function has an independent 24 hour hand that is (in most cases) set to Greenwich Mean Time.

Originally Posted by joe100

Lol! So let me get this straight: The watch that named the whole line, created for PanAm, to track two time zones, was in production for 29 years before the 16760 came out isn’t a GMT watch?

[joe100]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

That's correct. By definition, a GMT function has an independent 24 hour hand that is (in most cases) set to Greenwich Mean Time.

So what type of watch was the GMT Master before the 16760 then?

It’s 1969, Customer: “I’d like to buy a GMT Master!
Rolex: “Sorry Sir, the True GMT Master won’t be invented until 1983”.
Customer: “Oh darn, guess I’ll wait 14 years”

[SubMarine]

It was merely an AM/PM watch -- not a true GMT.

Originally Posted by joe100

So what type of watch was the GMT Master before the 16760 then?

It’s 1969, Customer: “I’d like to buy a GMT Master!
Rolex: “Sorry Sir, the True GMT Master won’t be invented until 1983”.
Customer: “Oh darn, guess I’ll wait 14 years”

[joe100]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

It was merely an AM/PM watch -- not a true GMT.

So the rotating bezel wasn’t of any use?

[SubMarine]

It was of use as a relative indicator to local or AM/PM time, but that was it.

Originally Posted by joe100

So the rotating bezel wasn’t of any use?

[joe100]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

It was of use as a relative indicator to local or AM/PM time, but that was it.

Alright, I tried to be subtle,

The GMT Master certainly reads 2 time zones off of the ROTATING bezel. If it were an Explorer 2 1655 that’d be true, but the rotating bezel tracks the second time zone. Although the GMT 2 is more intuitive, the GMT functions better for those of us on a 24hr clock anyway.