ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

kooltzar · 20 November 2012, 12:57 PM

Dear members,

I have seen a vintage GMT 1675 on ebay where the date magnifier or the datewheel itself looks very dodgy to me. Also the engravings between the lugs seem partially over-engraved. In general I still believe it is an original, but above points make me suspicious. What do you think?

Here is the link:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ICONIC-1960-...item3a7bcd9fb1

Thanks in advance for your comments.

77T · 21 November 2012, 10:45 AM

Sure is strange looking - it is not just the crystal, but the bezel insert is dodgy too.

dysondiver · 21 November 2012, 10:49 AM

26 people seem to like it , there is something funny looking , maybe just a bad camera angle.

springer · 21 November 2012, 01:34 PM

The bezel insert is a fat font, original insert along with the bezel. The crystal looks like a replacement 1.5 magnification instead of 2.5 magnification. The band was replaced at one point, but the watch is in fairly decent condition for being 60-years-old.

Czechman · 21 November 2012, 10:13 PM

The cyclops distortion is most likely the result of polishing out a big scratch, perhaps a chuck knocked out. Note deep scratches in the plex right next to the cyclops.

crowncollection · 22 November 2012, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by springer

The bezel insert is a fat font, original insert along with the bezel. The crystal looks like a replacement 1.5 magnification instead of 2.5 magnification. The band was replaced at one point, but the watch is in fairly decent condition for being 60-years-old.

when it comes to Gmt's Springer is the master

20 November 2012, 12:57 PM	#1
kooltzar "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Zürich Watch: Submariner 5512 Posts: 922	Everything allright with this early GMT 1675? Dear members, I have seen a vintage GMT 1675 on ebay where the date magnifier or the datewheel itself looks very dodgy to me. Also the engravings between the lugs seem partially over-engraved. In general I still believe it is an original, but above points make me suspicious. What do you think? Here is the link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ICONIC-1960-...item3a7bcd9fb1 Thanks in advance for your comments.

21 November 2012, 10:45 AM	#2
77T 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: PaulG Location: Georgia Posts: 42,017	Sure is strange looking - it is not just the crystal, but the bezel insert is dodgy too. __________________ Does anyone really know what time it is?

21 November 2012, 01:34 PM	#4
springer 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: jP Location: Texas Watch: GMT-MASTER Posts: 17,319	The bezel insert is a fat font, original insert along with the bezel. The crystal looks like a replacement 1.5 magnification instead of 2.5 magnification. The band was replaced at one point, but the watch is in fairly decent condition for being 60-years-old. __________________ Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics.

21 November 2012, 10:13 PM	#5
Czechman "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Watch: See my signature Posts: 1,189	The cyclops distortion is most likely the result of polishing out a big scratch, perhaps a chuck knocked out. Note deep scratches in the plex right next to the cyclops. __________________ "Woody and Jen say hey from North Kakalaki" 19019, 19018x3, 17000x2, 16570x2, 16220, 5700, 1501, 6564, 16030, 16710, 16610

21 November 2012, 10:49 AM	#3
dysondiver "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: tom Location: northern ireland Watch: my fins Posts: 10,063	26 people seem to like it , there is something funny looking , maybe just a bad camera angle.

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