Fake GMT Master 1977?

[phikap]

Hi all, long time/first time...

Considering buying this 1977 year GMT Master 1675. Any suggestions on whether it looks legit or not would be very much appreciated!

Edit: forgot to mention, seller says that the hour and seconds hands were replaced in the 90s with tritium replacements.

[Rudy40]

Dial isn't real...to start with...not 1977.Rolex probably Franken watch...run away

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[Rudy40]

Picture from Bob's watches
1675, 1978 Circa
Comparison yourself on Font on dial.Letter spacing..Date wheel don't look right, etc

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[Etschell]

hands had to be replaced as well. i would steer clear.

[TimeToGo]

Welcome to the Forum!
.
Why do you call it fake? Why do you say it's 1977?
.
First, I recommend you get the serial checked and then look for the production year. I would like to see a better picture of the dial, which looks like an earlier production - 70s MK-2 dial but my eyes are not the best, just want to confirm.
.
Looks like a very nice watch! Keep doing your homework..

[phikap]

Thanks for the responses! The reason I'm a little suspicious in the first place is that it is priced VERY well. Having said that, the serial number checks out to 1977, also not sure if it's worth anything, but the paperwork in the second picture pertains to a real (and still operating) jewellers - does anyone think it might be worth a long shot to call them to see if they have any records from that long ago?

For the moment, these are the only pictures I can get unfortunately.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by Rudy40

Dial isn't real...to start with...not 1977.Rolex probably Franken watch...run away

You might want to refrain from making such definitive proclamations unless you know for sure.

The watch looks fine from here, including the (Mk.2) dial. Depending on the SN, it could very well could be original, or the seller might just have the production date wrong. Hopefully the OP can share the first couple numbers to confirm.

That said, as with ALL of these requests: They are just pictures, which could have come from anywhere.
Unless you are buying in person, with the ability to view/inspect the piece prior to handing over the cash, (or from a very reputable/trusted seller), then buyer-beware!

[TimeToGo]

Originally Posted by phikap

Thanks for the responses! The reason I'm a little suspicious in the first place is that it is priced VERY well. Having said that, the serial number checks out to 1977, also not sure if it's worth anything, but the paperwork in the second picture pertains to a real (and still operating) jewellers - does anyone think it might be worth a long shot to call them to see if they have any records from that long ago?

For the moment, these are the only pictures I can get unfortunately.

Did you see a shot of the reference number or what are you going by to determine it is a 1977? The receipt?

Keep doing your homework. Call the jewelers? Why not? Are you going to ask them about a receipt or will you verify the reference numbers on the watch first?

[MorningTundra]

Originally Posted by Rudy40

Picture from Bob's watches
1675, 1978 Circa
Comparison yourself on Font on dial.Letter spacing..Date wheel don't look right, etc

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

I agree. Font of "Rolex" looks unusual as does the spacing between "Oyster Perpetual" while not a show stopper, proceed with caution.


Sent from my cracked, broken, hand wound Phone

[Rudy40]

Originally Posted by freefly

You might want to refrain from making such definitive proclamations unless you know for sure.

The watch looks fine from here, including the (Mk.2) dial. Depending on the SN, it could very well could be original, or the seller might just have the production date wrong. Hopefully the OP can share the first couple numbers to confirm.

That said, as with ALL of these requests: They are just pictures, which could have come from anywhere.
Unless you are buying in person, with the ability to view/inspect the piece prior to handing over the cash, (or from a very reputable/trusted seller), then buyer-beware!

The o.p has already stated that reference number checks out to be 1977..Which should be MK4....And even though this dial looks to be a MK2 dial...I have my reasons to believe it's a redial....on original plate....not a original MK2 dial from Rolex...why I believe that is the font being very fat and bold and not sharp and clear like a original MK2.Yes the spacing is correct and looks decent..but they are inconsistent in some of the lettering which I looked at for some time before posting..I study these dials and variant for years...and everyday...i have seen redials of this very same font being to fat and bold....i said what I said because of it being a 1977 reference with a MK2 dial in it...and some of the flaws I see in the dial
Mk2 above first picture...Top...
MK2 picture off this forum down below in second picture...Bottom
I could be wrong ...there are a lot of vereration in these old dials...but I have seen some really good redial's

[Rudy40]

Please please please don't take me as being sarcastic or anything like that.... I just don't want to see any members get burned like I did years ago...hence the reason I started researching many years ago...If I'm not sure....i will not post...but if I see a red flag...i try to pass it on...Always question what your looking at...there are some very convincing stuff out there...that will fool you very fast....Like I stated above...i could be wrong...but it sure don't look like no service dial to me ...or original...looks to be a very good redial

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[Rudy40]

Originally Posted by phikap

Thanks for the responses! The reason I'm a little suspicious in the first place is that it is priced VERY well. Having said that, the serial number checks out to 1977, also not sure if it's worth anything, but the paperwork in the second picture pertains to a real (and still operating) jewellers - does anyone think it might be worth a long shot to call them to see if they have any records from that long ago?

For the moment, these are the only pictures I can get unfortunately.

If it's priced very well ....and if the case and everything else is original besides the dial....its still worth plenty...and probably could get lucky and find a nice MK4 dial to install....if that's the original paper work for the case?...and you can buy right?...might be worth checking into😎

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[MorningTundra]

Originally Posted by Rudy40

If it's priced very well ....and if the case and everything else is original besides the dial....its still worth plenty...and probably could get lucky and find a nice MK4 dial to install....if that's the original paper work for the case?...and you can buy right?...might be worth checking into

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

I agree. A suspect redial doesn't kill a good opportunity. Redials can be corrected if bought at a fair price.


Sent from my cracked, broken, hand wound Phone

[phikap]

Thanks again for everyone's helpful insights - I'm following up with the seller for more info, hopefully will be able to post a few more pics shortly

[phikap]

A few more pictures (1/2) anyone have any further ideas? The more I look at it, the keener I am, trying to be cautious however...

[phikap]

More pics (2/2)

[123Blueface]

That dial work would drive me absolutely nuts.
Only consolation for me would be finding a vintage dial to replace that one.

[phikap]

Clearly the dial is not the same as the c.1978 in the Bob's watches pic. Does anyone know exactly what dial would be expected to be found on a 5.15m SN, and if this is in-fact incorrect, roughly how much of a percentage could be expected off a normal retail price? Thanks!

[MorningTundra]

See if they'll make a price allowance for a replacement dial... offer quick sale, cash, blah, blah


Sent from my cracked, broken, hand wound Phone

[TimeToGo]

Thanks for the better pictures.
.
It has the features of MK-0, which I will post below from Springer's thread. Coronet matches but the writing is much wider.
.

[phikap]

I'm leaning to also think it's a painted redial, the batons dont look like a Mk 0 to me. Considering buying it and then trying to get an original dial to replace it with

[Rudy40]

Originally Posted by phikap

I'm leaning to also think it's a painted redial, the batons dont look like a Mk 0 to me. Considering buying it and then trying to get an original dial to replace it with

PM sent
The dial has been clearly refinished....But if the rest checks out?...You could find a original MK4 dial and have a great piece..😎
PS. Remember check the movement before purchasing

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[freefly]

Originally Posted by Rudy40

The o.p has already stated that reference number checks out to be 1977..Which should be MK4....

A Mk.4 dial in a 5.1M case might be "common" but it's not a finite rule. A Mk.3, Mk.4, or Mk.5 dial would be considered "acceptable" as well I believe. However, I (and others here I think) have come across multiple instances of the specific combo of Mk.2 dials in 5.1M cases. Yes, dial swaps are/were common and there are plenty of 1675s out there with the wrong dials (authentic but not original). Plenty of fakes and redials too. However, the "Mk.2 dial in a 5.1M case" phenomenon has popped up too frequently to be a coincidence, IMO.

Originally Posted by Rudy40

And even though this dial looks to be a MK2 dial...I have my reasons to believe it's a redial....on original plate....not a original MK2 dial from Rolex...why I believe that is the font being very fat and bold and not sharp and clear like a original MK2.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. Looks fine from here. I see what you are saying, but realize that the pics are not the greatest (poor focus, exposure, resolution/compression, etc). Also, there have been a few different variants of Mk.2 dials I have seen. They all share the same flat-bottom coronet, but have subtle differences in the font. I have seen thin, bold, and "bleeding" font Mk.2 dials. The Mk.0 dials look very similar as well, adding to the confusion.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by Rudy40

Mk2 above first picture...Top...
MK2 picture off this forum down below in second picture...Bottom
I could be wrong ...there are a lot of vereration in these old dials...but I have seen some really good redial's

You are not comparing apples-to-apples here.
The Mk.2 dial you are comparing it to is not the same variant. It looks to be a Mk.2 "bleeding" dial, which is fairly uncommon.


For a more accurate comparison, here is a Mk.2 dial of the same variant as the dial in the OP (pic courtesy of Jacek):

[Rudy40]

Originally Posted by freefly

A Mk.4 dial in a 5.1M case might be "common" but it's not a finite rule. A Mk.3, Mk.4, or Mk.5 dial would be considered "acceptable" as well I believe. However, I (and others here I think) have come across multiple instances of the specific combo of Mk.2 dials in 5.1M cases. Yes, dial swaps are/were common and there are plenty of 1675s out there with the wrong dials (authentic but not original). Plenty of fakes and redials too. However, the "Mk.2 dial in a 5.1M case" phenomenon has popped up too frequently to be a coincidence, IMO.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. Looks fine from here. I see what you are saying, but realize that the pics are not the greatest (poor focus, exposure, resolution/compression, etc). Also, there have been a few different variants of Mk.2 dials I have seen. They all share the same flat-bottom coronet, but have subtle differences in the font. I have seen thin, bold, and "bleeding" font Mk.2 dials. The Mk.0 dials look very similar as well, adding to the confusion.

I do agree with most of what you said actually!
I too have seen my share of the older dial being in newer cases and vise versa. Especially in the 1675...Especially being on this forum since 2012. I have seen a few of these..and some being very similar case as this one.
The dial looks good to you?
But it has too many incosistant flaws in my eyes. Agree to disagree...But you obviously know your GMT's and have brought some valid points up..How ever who's going to notice anyways besides the OP?
I have talked to the OP through PM and told him to go for it ...if the price is fair?
It's just a piece of mind knowing your purchase is all genuine...it is for me anyways.

I will admit I jumped the gun when I first posted in this thread...but it was from looking at the dial.. I whole heartily believe it's a redial...and that threw a red flag up in my mind..does that mean the whole watch is compromised? No! could be simple case of dial damage in the history of the piece and someone sold the owner a redial. Or someone sold a very nice MK2 dial and replaced with cheaper dial and made $2/ $3k to boot? Who knows? But from you...and me...the OP got a wealth of info on the subject. And I'm sure we both can agree that's a beautiful thing! And that's what makes this forum wonderful
Cheers Mate!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[springer]

This is a fun thread for sure. I'm on edge waiting for the outcome!!!

All the reference material is here on the forum regarding GMT dials. Maybe some of these guys posting here should take some time and research the GMT 1675 dial threads to see if in fact it is genuine or something else. The only variant of the Mark II that I am aware of is the Mark II.a which is similar to the Mark II but the coronet is noticeably different.

Additionally, we had a discussion the other day in another thread regarding Mark II dials in 5.1 million cases. Most of us aren't buying it as being original for that late of a serial number. The most common dials for 5.1 million cases are the Mark IV or Mark V and an occasional Mark III radial dial.

Spoiler...................the dial in the first post is a ...............Mark II. I believe that there is some distortion in the photography from Phikap's photos which makes the fonts appear a little fat as well as the coronet or possibly the printing was a little too thick when it was made.

[Sky21]

Originally Posted by springer

This is a fun thread for sure. I'm on edge waiting for the outcome!!!

All the reference material is here on the forum regarding GMT dials. Maybe some of these guys posting here should take some time and research the GMT 1675 dial threads to see if in fact it is genuine or something else. The only variant of the Mark II that I am aware of is the Mark II.a which is similar to the Mark II but the coronet is noticeably different.

Additionally, we had a discussion the other day in another thread regarding Mark II dials in 5.1 million cases. Most of us aren't buying it as being original for that late of a serial number. The most common dials for 5.1 million cases are the Mark IV or Mark V and an occasional Mark III radial dial.

Spoiler...................the dial in the first post is a ...............Mark II. I believe that there is some distortion in the photography from Phikap's photos which makes the fonts appear a little fat as well as the coronet or possibly the printing was a little too thick when it was made.

Thanks for your analysis on the dial. What do you think about the printing on the date wheel? Is the font just distorted a bit by the angle of the camera and the cyclops? I know there was some question above about the number 6 looking strange.

[springer]

The date wheel looks like the correct wheel with the brushed silver finish. Clearly the cyclope is scratched creating the distortion.