ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Quicksilver · 22 September 2016, 07:41 PM

What do you guys think of this 1675 from 1967? Does everything look correct to you?

I like the aged tritium markers on the dial but the hands look too white and clean and a poor match (probably a later service replacement?).

Thanks

lee fowler · 22 September 2016, 09:21 PM

Not sure on the dial, but service hands and insert.

TimeToGo · 22 September 2016, 10:05 PM

Service dial as well..

lee fowler · 22 September 2016, 10:25 PM

You confirmed my thoughts Norman.

Quicksilver · 22 September 2016, 10:52 PM

Thank you both for your advice. I don't think I'll go for this watch as the hands stick out like a sore thumb to me (pardon the pun). And yes, I had also thought that the bezel looked a little too perfect.

How can you tell its a service dial? Presumably its an earlier tritium service dial?

Lamone · 22 September 2016, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

How can you tell its a service dial? Presumably its an earlier tritium service dial?

The dial layout (font, crown, etc...) is that of a service dial.
I invite you to search for '1675 dial variations' and the MK classification. Very interesting and informative read

springer · 23 September 2016, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Thank you both for your advice. I don't think I'll go for this watch as the hands stick out like a sore thumb to me (pardon the pun). And yes, I had also thought that the bezel looked a little too perfect.

How can you tell its a service dial? Presumably its an earlier tritium service dial?

Your suspicion regarding the "bezel" or bezel insert is correct, which is also a service replacement.

Quicksilver · 23 September 2016, 12:19 AM

Thank you Lamone. I'll check it out

Quicksilver · 23 September 2016, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by springer

You are correct regarding the "bezel" or bezel insert which is also a service replacement.

Thanks. I suppose that the lack of fading is a give away. Surely a 49 year old bezel is bound to have some fading unless its been locked in a safe?

Jim M · 23 September 2016, 01:26 AM

Looks fine to me for a watch that has been maintained and repaired throughout its life.

StanGMT · 23 September 2016, 06:12 AM

Just compared you photo with my 1967 1675 GMT, which I've owned from new, so I know its history, and I agree with everyone else - definitely service dial, hands and bezel - none of those in the pic are original.

Stan.

Quicksilver · 23 September 2016, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanGMT

Just compared you photo with my 1967 1675 GMT, which I've owned from new, so I know its history, and I agree with everyone else - definitely service dial, hands and bezel - none of those in the pic are original.

Stan.

Thanks Stan

Tom1675 · 24 September 2016, 03:20 AM

With all of the above its a pass but I'll also throw in the bracelet & clasp are replacements.

22 September 2016, 07:41 PM	#1
Quicksilver "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: David Location: London+Guangzhou Watch: ing watches Posts: 2,603	Gmt 1675 What do you guys think of this 1675 from 1967? Does everything look correct to you? I like the aged tritium markers on the dial but the hands look too white and clean and a poor match (probably a later service replacement?). Thanks Attached Images __________________ Rolex Sea Dweller 116600, GMT Master II 16710 (Pepsi) and 116710 BLNR, Daytona 116500LN, Submariner 14060M.

22 September 2016, 09:21 PM	#2
lee fowler 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: UK Watch: GMT Posts: 2,559	Not sure on the dial, but service hands and insert. __________________ Instagram: @lee1563

22 September 2016, 10:25 PM	#4
lee fowler 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: UK Watch: GMT Posts: 2,559	You confirmed my thoughts Norman. __________________ Instagram: @lee1563

22 September 2016, 10:52 PM	#5
Quicksilver "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: David Location: London+Guangzhou Watch: ing watches Posts: 2,603	Thank you both for your advice. I don't think I'll go for this watch as the hands stick out like a sore thumb to me (pardon the pun). And yes, I had also thought that the bezel looked a little too perfect. How can you tell its a service dial? Presumably its an earlier tritium service dial? __________________ Rolex Sea Dweller 116600, GMT Master II 16710 (Pepsi) and 116710 BLNR, Daytona 116500LN, Submariner 14060M.

23 September 2016, 12:19 AM	#8
Quicksilver "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: David Location: London+Guangzhou Watch: ing watches Posts: 2,603	Thank you Lamone. I'll check it out __________________ Rolex Sea Dweller 116600, GMT Master II 16710 (Pepsi) and 116710 BLNR, Daytona 116500LN, Submariner 14060M.

22 September 2016, 10:05 PM	#3
TimeToGo 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: North Florida Posts: 16,736	Service dial as well..

23 September 2016, 01:26 AM	#10
Jim M "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Long Island NY US Watch: 1675 14060M 16622 Posts: 507	Looks fine to me for a watch that has been maintained and repaired throughout its life. __________________ Rolex, Omega, Panerai, Chopard, Blancpain, Breitling, Seiko, Zenith, IWC, Tag Heuer, Bvlgari, Cartier, Movado, Tissot, Casio and Sinn, a few of my favorite things

23 September 2016, 06:12 AM	#11
StanGMT "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northumberland,UK Watch: 1675 GMT Posts: 641	Just compared you photo with my 1967 1675 GMT, which I've owned from new, so I know its history, and I agree with everyone else - definitely service dial, hands and bezel - none of those in the pic are original. Stan.

24 September 2016, 03:20 AM	#13
Tom1675 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Real Name: Tom Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,187	With all of the above its a pass but I'll also throw in the bracelet & clasp are replacements.

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