ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Overkill · 31 May 2009, 05:50 AM

When do you guys think we're going to stop referring to the 116710LN as the "GMT-IIc" or the "GMT-Master IIc"?

It's a GMT-Master II, that's what it is now. Don't you guys think it's earned the right to be called a GMT-Master II, period?

I always feel like referring to it as a "GMT-IIc" or "GMT-Master IIc" is somewhat slightly degrading, or denying it the right to be called a GMT-Master II... like it's being rejected as a real GMT-Master II or something.

I think the 116710 should be referred to as a "GMT-Master II", period... and the 16710 should be called "GMT-Master II classic" or something.

Thoughts? Does anyone feel the same?

allanofcalifornia · 31 May 2009, 06:02 AM

I think the ceramic GMT should always be referred to as GMT IIc. Rolex stopped making the real GMT II.

Allan

BigHat · 31 May 2009, 06:09 AM

I don't think it's degrading at all and certainly avoids confusion with an existing base of millions of older GMT models.

Tools · 31 May 2009, 08:47 AM

Hey...I agree.....

We call the GMT II ceramic a... GMT II...

And we can call the GMT II classic a........... GMT IIc...

I think all is solved; no confusion.............

Atl · 31 May 2009, 08:57 AM

The new GMT IIc does not stop in minute increments which drives me batty!! I use that function daily, why they changed that, i'll never know. The shiny center links turn me off, I like that I can change colors for the bezel insert, and I would hate to find out how much the ceramic ring would cost after being shattered by bumping into a door knob, or file cabinet. I also think the bracelet is not wide enough for the size case, it looks a little funny to me. Overall, I like my GMT-II (Classic) better. But that's just me.

Z-Sub · 31 May 2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atl

The new GMT IIc does not stop in minute increments which drives me batty!! I use that function daily, why they changed that, i'll never know. The shiny center links turn me off, I like that I can change colors for the bezel insert, and I would hate to find out how much the ceramic ring would cost after being shattered by bumping into a door knob, or file cabinet. I also think the bracelet is not wide enough for the size case, it looks a little funny to me. Overall, I like my GMT-II (Classic) better. But that's just me.

Yes, even though the bezel turns smoothly, I like the way the old bezel turns also

GMTJOHNNY · 31 May 2009, 12:22 PM

Naaah. I have a plain old GMT MASTER and now that I have the GMTIIC it is far and away more accurate and an overall improvement to the line. When you add the "C" everyone knows what you are talking about. IMHO of course. Terry- chime in on this one brother!

Imtiaz · 31 May 2009, 12:27 PM

Youssef,

Take it easy mate. We do have abbreviated names for certain watches.

No need to be perfect. The GMT II is now out of production. Rolex should have thought of a new name and the GMT II C is just perfect.

Cheers

The GMT Kid · 31 May 2009, 12:29 PM

Let's keep the GMT IIc nomenclature. It's better to have a consistent naming scheme to avoid confusion.

shedlock2000 · 31 May 2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allanofcalifornia

I think the ceramic GMT should always be referred to as GMT IIc. Rolex stopped making the real GMT II.

Allan

What he said!!

'Are you a god?'

TheVTCGuy · 31 May 2009, 02:46 PM

I like to refer to it as:

Quote:

The GMT-ALSO

buz-lh · 31 May 2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tools

Hey...I agree.....

We call the GMT II ceramic a... GMT II...

And we can call the GMT II classic a........... GMT IIc...

I think all is solved; no confusion.............

padi56 · 31 May 2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMTJOHNNY

Naaah. I have a plain old GMT MASTER and now that I have the GMTIIC it is far and away more accurate and an overall improvement to the line. When you add the "C" everyone knows what you are talking about. IMHO of course. Terry- chime in on this one brother!

You say its far more accurate but all Rolex movements since the 10XX have shown superb accuracy.And they all have to pass the same COSC test to be called chronometers,no matter whats inside the case. Some movements like a very old 5513 of mine still within +1 second a day.And accuracy mainly come from how they are regulated,and what will great on one persons wrist don't necessarily mean it will perform same on someone else's wrist.

buz-lh · 31 May 2009, 07:27 PM

You can always use the numeric reference if you want to be specific.

teacard · 31 May 2009, 10:40 PM

An obvious comment maybe but, why is the ceramic not called GMT III?

landroverking · 31 May 2009, 11:09 PM

Never, it is just easier to call it the GMT IIc.

cupp260 · 15 July 2009, 07:47 AM

I need all the help I can get when it comes to the different models..keep the "c" please.

Mwing · 15 July 2009, 08:27 AM

its becoz ppl here r lzy 2 type

dranhle · 15 July 2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atl

The new GMT IIc does not stop in minute increments which drives me batty!! I use that function daily, why they changed that, i'll never know. The shiny center links turn me off, I like that I can change colors for the bezel insert, and I would hate to find out how much the ceramic ring would cost after being shattered by bumping into a door knob, or file cabinet. I also think the bracelet is not wide enough for the size case, it looks a little funny to me. Overall, I like my GMT-II (Classic) better. But that's just me.

I have both and do prefer the hour increments of the IIc. It's a lot easier to count the clicks when rotating. I do agree that the center links should be brushed, but it's starting to grow on me.

TempoKing · 15 July 2009, 01:22 PM

How else can I separate rubbish from filet mignon...???

mck22 · 15 July 2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TempoKing

How else can I separate rubbish from filet mignon...???

I like it!!!

exxondus · 15 July 2009, 06:41 PM

doesnt matter what people call it as long as it looks good on my wrist.

I don mind wearing rubbish on my wrist if its a watch from ROLEX

Andad · 15 July 2009, 06:45 PM

It should be called the GMT IIc TT.

Tombstone · 15 July 2009, 07:05 PM

I too own a new GMT II or GMT IIC or GMT, or 116710LN. I don't have a view on what it should be called. I have used all the about terms. What can I say I love the watch. I call it MINE.

31 May 2009, 05:50 AM	#1
Overkill "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Youssef Location: Cairo, Egypt Watch: Milgauss Z-Blue Posts: 925	GMT-Master II When do you guys think we're going to stop referring to the 116710LN as the "GMT-IIc" or the "GMT-Master IIc"? It's a GMT-Master II, that's what it is now. Don't you guys think it's earned the right to be called a GMT-Master II, period? I always feel like referring to it as a "GMT-IIc" or "GMT-Master IIc" is somewhat slightly degrading, or denying it the right to be called a GMT-Master II... like it's being rejected as a real GMT-Master II or something. I think the 116710 should be referred to as a "GMT-Master II", period... and the 16710 should be called "GMT-Master II classic" or something. Thoughts? Does anyone feel the same? __________________ Rolex GMT-Master II 116700 Rolex Explorer 214270 Rolex Milgauss 116400GV Z-Blue IWC Portuguese Hand Wound IW5454-08 Panerai Radiomir PAM183

31 May 2009, 08:47 AM	#4
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,516	Hey...I agree..... We call the GMT II ceramic a... GMT II... And we can call the GMT II classic a........... GMT IIc... I think all is solved; no confusion............. __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

31 May 2009, 12:22 PM	#7
GMTJOHNNY "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: John Location: LONG ISLAND, NY Watch: 2007 DAY DATE 18KT Posts: 1,378	Naaah. I have a plain old GMT MASTER and now that I have the GMTIIC it is far and away more accurate and an overall improvement to the line. When you add the "C" everyone knows what you are talking about. IMHO of course. Terry- chime in on this one brother! __________________ ROLEX DAY DATE 118238 (2007) ROLEX DAY DATE 18238 (1997) ROLEX GMT 16750 PEPSI (1987) ROLEX AIR KING 14000 (1991) ROLEX GMTIIC TT 116713LN (2008)

31 May 2009, 07:27 PM	#14
buz-lh "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Buz Location: Atlanta Watch: Rolex Tudor Pam Posts: 5,108	You can always use the numeric reference if you want to be specific. __________________ Buz The faster you move, the slower time passes, the longer you live. Peter Diamandis

15 July 2009, 06:45 PM	#23
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,534	It should be called the GMT IIc TT. __________________ E

31 May 2009, 06:02 AM	#2
allanofcalifornia "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Allan Location: California Posts: 3,210	I think the ceramic GMT should always be referred to as GMT IIc. Rolex stopped making the real GMT II. Allan

31 May 2009, 06:09 AM	#3
BigHat Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Real Name: Matt Location: Arlington, VA Watch: Lange One MP Posts: 4,043	I don't think it's degrading at all and certainly avoids confusion with an existing base of millions of older GMT models.

31 May 2009, 08:57 AM	#5
Atl Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Real Name: David Location: Sandy Springs, Ga Watch: GMT II, new Subbie Posts: 937	The new GMT IIc does not stop in minute increments which drives me batty!! I use that function daily, why they changed that, i'll never know. The shiny center links turn me off, I like that I can change colors for the bezel insert, and I would hate to find out how much the ceramic ring would cost after being shattered by bumping into a door knob, or file cabinet. I also think the bracelet is not wide enough for the size case, it looks a little funny to me. Overall, I like my GMT-II (Classic) better. But that's just me.

31 May 2009, 12:27 PM	#8
Imtiaz Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Real Name: De Location: Tokyo Watch: Daytona, Sub, DS, Posts: 1,046	Youssef, Take it easy mate. We do have abbreviated names for certain watches. No need to be perfect. The GMT II is now out of production. Rolex should have thought of a new name and the GMT II C is just perfect. Cheers

31 May 2009, 12:29 PM	#9
The GMT Kid Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: S.F. Peninsula Watch: what you say! Posts: 815	Let's keep the GMT IIc nomenclature. It's better to have a consistent naming scheme to avoid confusion.

31 May 2009, 10:40 PM	#15
teacard Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Alan W Location: UK Watch: PO45,GMTc,Flighty Posts: 64	An obvious comment maybe but, why is the ceramic not called GMT III?

31 May 2009, 11:09 PM	#16
landroverking "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: TEXAS Watch: Daytona Posts: 7,648	Never, it is just easier to call it the GMT IIc.

15 July 2009, 07:47 AM	#17
cupp260 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Real Name: Chester Cupp Location: Athens, Georgia Watch: Rolex Sub 16610 Posts: 22	I need all the help I can get when it comes to the different models..keep the "c" please.

15 July 2009, 08:27 AM	#18
Mwing "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 216	its becoz ppl here r lzy 2 type

15 July 2009, 01:22 PM	#20
TempoKing Banned Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Anastasios Location: Athens Greece Watch: Rolex GMT 1675 Posts: 8,497	How else can I separate rubbish from filet mignon...???

15 July 2009, 06:41 PM	#22
exxondus "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Singapore Posts: 568	doesnt matter what people call it as long as it looks good on my wrist. I don mind wearing rubbish on my wrist if its a watch from ROLEX

15 July 2009, 07:05 PM	#24
Tombstone "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Richard Location: LV, NV Watch: LV Sub and others Posts: 2,689	I too own a new GMT II or GMT IIC or GMT, or 116710LN. I don't have a view on what it should be called. I have used all the about terms. What can I say I love the watch. I call it MINE. __________________ Always working...by choice

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)