1975-76 GMT 1675 Are they rare?

[jlovda]

I have a 1675 GMT SN 316xxxx. From a chart on this forum it seems to be from the 1975 to 76 era although there is a hole in the chart during this time period. I am the original owner, purchased in 1976. I have searched the TRF For Sale section and I could not find one from that era. They all seem to be <73 or >78. Is this just probability or rarity?

[Tom1675]

3.1m puts you in 1971ish I think... Did you ever have parts replaced at a service?

[Alex The Watch Guy]

This looks to be an Mk 2 dial which is correct for that serial. Your watch was produced much earlier than 1975/6 which is not unusual.

[jlovda]

Originally Posted by Tom1675

3.1m puts you in 1971ish I think... Did you ever have parts replaced at a service?

This may bring back a ghost of a story. I bought my wife's engagement ring at a jewelry story in Chicago in 1976. They were in the Pittsfield Building, Downtown, a building with about 50 jewelers in it. (Sutters Watch Repair was also there at the time.) We told the salesmen were also looking for a red/blue Rolex GMT. He said give me a few days and I'll get back to you. He had the watch. It came in a green box (marked 06.?0.06 - Switzerland) with the outside box, instruction book, brown chronometer seal and green plastic GMT tag. It was roughly $550. We just got a hand written receipt on a two part carbon paper sheet with no SN noted. We were happy and quite frankly, I had no idea how important an AD was. To us it was purchased just like a diamond but was made of SS. Checking serial numbers quite a few years later I was confused that the mfg date seemed to be several years prior to purchase. Sutter's adjusted it a month or so after we got it, no charge, but mentioned it was not an AD when I showed my receipt. He mentioned nothing about the date of mfg. Never had a problem with it until it stopped in 88. The watch was serviced in 88 by Sutter's and again in 2017 by Basch's in Cleveland. Basch's changed the date wheel but I got the original. A tiny dot of the number 29 was missing. Everything else is original. Was it a used watch, I don't know?

[1665fan]

Not a mark 2 dial. More than likely service. Hard to tell because the hand is over the O which you can use to tell

[springer]

Originally Posted by 1665fan

Not a mark 2 dial. More than likely service. Hard to tell because the hand is over the O which you can use to tell

Looks like a Mark 2.5. It would not be a service dial based on the style of the visible coronet.

316XXXX would work out fine for a Mark 2 or 2.5 dial - circa 1971 possibly early 1972.

[jlovda]

Originally Posted by 1665fan

Not a mark 2 dial. More than likely service. Hard to tell because the hand is over the O which you can use to tell

The watch is now in our safety deposit box. I'll have to get it and take a picture. I was never told about a service dial. Can a date estimate of a service dial be made based on fonts, etc?

[jlovda]

I found another picture!

[Dan S]

Interesting that it sat unsold for so many years.

[Tom1675]

Originally Posted by jlovda

The watch is now in our safety deposit box. I'll have to get it and take a picture. I was never told about a service dial. Can a date estimate of a service dial be made based on fonts, etc?

Yes on fonts, coronet, lume plots... but you've got a MK2.5 which is right for your serial. If you bought it new in 1976 then you can maybe you still have the paperwork/box etc? That would be great if so! Completely possible that the delta b/t the serial and purchase date is a few years. Waaayyy stranger things happen with all things vintage.

Only suggestion I have is that you get down to the bank, take that piece out of the safe deposit box and get it on your wrist!

[Tools]

Dating is not an exact science as Rolex did not release watches by sequence, even though they were assigned sequential numbers.

There is a gap in our chart because this era followed the case-back stamp years, so hard data when actual serials were seen and sold is erratic.

If your watch is a '72 or earlier, it may have a dated case-back. Otherwise, dating is always going to be + or - a year or two, or even more for the slower moving non-SS models.

[HarryLime]

Quite nice example!

[jlovda]

Originally Posted by Tools

Dating is not an exact science as Rolex did not release watches by sequence, even though they were assigned sequential numbers.

There is a gap in our chart because this era followed the case-back stamp years, so hard data when actual serials were seen and sold is erratic.

If your watch is a '72 or earlier, it may have a dated case-back. Otherwise, dating is always going to be + or - a year or two, or even more for the slower moving non-SS models.

Because the serial numbers are sequential and not (that I know of) related to model, I wonder if there is a dearth of other models during the same mid-70's time period. Maybe a majority of sellers are using "Tools'" list as I was to determine vintage?

[athom]

mk2.5 dial from 1972 / 73

[jlovda]

Thank you all for your help.

Merry Christmas!

[Swearengen]

The Mk3 dial 1675 was sold for a relatively short period in the '70s, so that might count as less common

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by jlovda

Because the serial numbers are sequential and not (that I know of) related to model, I wonder if there is a dearth of other models during the same mid-70's time period. Maybe a majority of sellers are using "Tools'" list as I was to determine vintage?

Is this what you mean by "Tools" list: https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=54362

If so, then 3.1M corresponds to 1971-72 as others have indicated. In his list, 1975-76 is 4.2-5M.

[Swearengen]

Don't forget service cases are in the 4.4m - 4.7m range, or possibly more now

[jlovda]

I seem to have had strange luck on buying "old" watches. I purchased my 5513 new at Chronometrie Beyer in Zürich in the summer of 1970. The SN is 204xxxx which puts the mfg year as 1966 ???

[springer]

Originally Posted by jlovda

I seem to have had strange luck on buying "old" watches. I purchased my 5513 new at Chronometrie Beyer in Zürich in the summer of 1970. The SN is 204xxxx which puts the mfg year as 1966 ???

204xxxx should have a 1968 caseback. Based on my experience with the sales of complete sets back during the 1960s and well into the 1970s, most watches were sold two to three years after the case back stampings.

A 204xxxx serial number would more than likely be found on a watch sold during 1974/75.

Personally, I prefer to date the 1972 and earlier watches by their case back dates - it is much more consistent for me than any of these charts found on the internet.

[jlovda]

Originally Posted by springer

204xxxx should have a 1968 caseback. Based on my experience with the sales of complete sets back during the 1960s and well into the 1970s, most watches were sold two to three years after the case back stampings.

A 204xxxx serial number would more than likely be found on a watch sold during 1974/75.

Personally, I prefer to date the 1972 and earlier watches by their case back dates - it is much more consistent for me than any of these charts found on the internet.

Thanks. For the average owner, looking inside the case back is not a viable option considering the waterproof testing required after the watch is opened.

[Filipão]

@jlovda

[harry in montreal]

Funny, I have a gmt that is very close in serial number and has the same dial. The font of the E in Rolex has a nice Art Deco feel compared to the others. From what I have read this mark 2.5 is more unusual than others. I had to stop wearing mine as the value kept climbing. And I was afraid I would kill the gmt. I miss it very much

[jlovda]

Just a followup. I looked at the variations at https://gmtmaster1675.com/mark-2-5/
The Mk 2.5 version matches perfectly.

Thanks again!

[Claven2]

beautiful pepsi - sad to leave it in a safety deposit box, it deserves wrist time :(

[Filipão]

3.259.XXXX is a Mk2.5 too.