New Tudor GMT vs 5 digit GMT Master

[shedlock2000]

I recently read a post on another forum discussing whether or not the Tudor was a poor mans’ Rolex. I’m certain that topic has been done to death on here and I’m frankly uninterested in the debate.

What does interest me, though, is a comment made on the thread discussing how Tudor was now servicing a demand for vintage inspired designs and how those customers might be drawn to Tudor to avoid ‘vintage Rolex drama’.

Having just purchased the BBGMT because I happen to like the vintage cues, I’m wondering what sort of drama I might have had were I to have sallied forth for a vintage GMT Master?

Curiously, I am considering trading my brand new Tudor in for a 1675/16750 (the blue on the bezel of the BBGMT spends most of its time as black, and the only GMT Master option I actually dislike is the black/red version), and so I was wondering what kinds of drama one gets with a vintage GMT Master?

Having owned a purple dial 16753, I can report that the movement failed while I had it, and resulted in a bit of time spend at my watchmaker’s. I’ve never had any service work on any of my new models — is this the sort of thing to which the poster was referring?

Similarly, as far as time regulation is concerned, my Bremont Alt1 ZT/BK is by far the most accurate mechanical watch I’ve ever owned, and they’re generally slated across the forums. My New Tudor keeps COSC time — but is on the limit and gains 4seconds a day, my 16753 wasn’t bad (but also wasn’t consistent), my 116710 and my 16710 were both well within COSC too. So it seems that the Tudor and the vintage are/we’re the poorest time keepers.

Should I let this sort of ‘drama’ put me off considering a trade for a vintage GMT? Should I stick with the Tudor because it’s new and warranteed (so is the Bremont, and that’s a champion time keeper!) or should I buy vintage because I really do prefer the proportions (and the colour of blue!)







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[springer]

I'll take a stab at some of your concerns notated in bold lettering.

I recently read a post on another forum discussing whether or not the Tudor was a poor mans’ Rolex. I’m certain that topic has been done to death on here and I’m frankly uninterested in the debate.

A Tudor is a Tudor and not a Rolex. Personally, I do not own any of the modern retro Tudors and have no plans to purchase one. - they aren't for me.

What does interest me, though, is a comment made on the thread discussing how Tudor was now servicing a demand for vintage inspired designs and how those customers might be drawn to Tudor to avoid ‘vintage Rolex drama’.

Vintage Rolex drama? I don't understand what that is. There are many great vintage watches and brands to choose from if there is some type of "internet" drama regarding vintage Rolex that doesn't appeal to you.

Having just purchased the BBGMT because I happen to like the vintage cues, I’m wondering what sort of drama I might have had were I to have sallied forth for a vintage GMT Master?

I can't help you there. There is plenty of drama on the internet for everyone on these forums whether it pertains to Rolex GMTs, Submariners etc, Heuers or Omegas.

Curiously, I am considering trading my brand new Tudor in for a 1675/16750 (the blue on the bezel of the BBGMT spends most of its time as black, and the only GMT Master option I actually dislike is the black/red version), and so I was wondering what kinds of drama one gets with a vintage GMT Master?

No drama, just admiration - but vintage isn't for everyone as you have observed.

Having owned a purple dial 16753, I can report that the movement failed while I had it, and resulted in a bit of time spend at my watchmaker’s. I’ve never had any service work on any of my new models — is this the sort of thing to which the poster was referring?

I am shocked that you had a watch break down - are you serious! Anything mechanical can break or need attention.

Similarly, as far as time regulation is concerned, my Bremont Alt1 ZT/BK is by far the most accurate mechanical watch I’ve ever owned, and they’re generally slated across the forums. My New Tudor keeps COSC time — but is on the limit and gains 4seconds a day, my 16753 wasn’t bad (but also wasn’t consistent), my 116710 and my 16710 were both well within COSC too. So it seems that the Tudor and the vintage are/we’re the poorest time keepers.

You answered your own concerns. I'd stick with the Bremont or consider a quartz model if dead-on accuracy is something you are after.

Should I let this sort of ‘drama’ put me off considering a trade for a vintage GMT? Should I stick with the Tudor because it’s new and warranteed (so is the Bremont, and that’s a champion time keeper!) or should I buy vintage because I really do prefer the proportions (and the colour of blue!)

A Tudor or Bremont will never replace or surpass the bang of a vintage Rolex sports model. Find a nice GMT and you won't look back - expect to pony-up $15,000 plus for a nice example.

[exador]

Originally Posted by springer

Find a nice GMT and you won't look back - expect to pony-up $15,000 plus for a nice example.

That’s the quandary isn’t it. A Tudor GMT provides 80% of the vibe for 25% of the price...

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by exador

That’s the quandary isn’t it. A Tudor GMT provides 80% of the vibe for 25% of the price...

But not even 1% of the charm.

To the OP, if you prefer the older proportions, and a pepsi insert, you should perhaps venture a 16710.
Sure an older watch may need a service, but that is a small price to pay to enjoy a watch that will bring me tons of joy over the years. Worth the wait and buck IMO, as well as the hassle.

I simply cannot enjoy a modern watch like I do vintage.
If you can, then you are far more fortunate than I am!

[shedlock2000]

[QUOTE=springer;8901681]I'll take a stab at some of your concerns notated in bold lettering.

I recently read a post on another forum discussing whether or not the Tudor was a poor mans’ Rolex. I’m certain that topic has been done to death on here and I’m frankly uninterested in the debate.

A Tudor is a Tudor and not a Rolex. Personally, I do not own any of the modern retro Tudors and have no plans to purchase one. - they aren't for me.

A fair response. Just out of interest, why are they not for you?

Vintage Rolex drama? I don't understand what that is. There are many great vintage watches and brands to choose from if there is some type of "internet" drama regarding vintage Rolex that doesn't appeal to you.

I don’t think it’s an internet drama to which the poster was referring, rather the mechanical reliability or completeness, perhaps. I’m also not aware of any internet drama. To be honest, I was really curious about the nature of the supposed drama. I should point out that also don’t perceive any drama — it is, really, this question I was seeking some answer to: what is this supposed drama about vintage Rolexes.


I am shocked that you had a watch break down - are you serious! Anything mechanical can break or need attention.


Oh, I’m not saying things don’t break down (I’m a Land Rover enthusiast, I’m a fully paid up member of the ‘things break down’ club — I just wondered if the likelihood of a vintage watch breaking down was greater than that of a new movement and whether or not that was the ‘drama’ to which the poster was referring.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swish77]

Nothing wrong with the new Tudors, but simply not my taste. If you're having second-thoughts ... why not just get yourself a Rolex GMT 16710 or 16700? They're not really vintage, even the early versions, but they're certainly classic. They would give you that true "Pepsi" look, great time-keeping reliability, and you wouldn't need to deal with any so-called "drama" of a vintage Rolex (although you wouldn't have that anyway). They're also more affordable, but that seems to be changing by the day.

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by swish77

Nothing wrong with the new Tudors, but simply not my taste. If you're having second-thoughts ... why not just get yourself a Rolex GMT 16710 or 16700? They're not really vintage, even the early versions, but they're certainly classic. They would give you that true "Pepsi" look, great time-keeping reliability, and you wouldn't need to deal with any so-called "drama" of a vintage Rolex (although you wouldn't have that anyway). They're also more affordable, but that seems to be changing by the day.

My second Rolex was a 16710 Black bezel, which I flipped for the new 116710 (bad choice, given that my 16710 was a late model with the 3186 movement!! Eeeek!) I loved the watch, but I’m drawn to the larger width bezels of the 1675/16750. I’m not sure if the bezel fonts make a difference too. In some shots, though, the 16710 bezels looks just as wide. Certainly, with the later references there is the benefit of the added functions (such as the independently adjustable hour hand etc.), so I do take your point!

Is the photo of a 16710? I get a bit confused after the 16700!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[exador]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

My second Rolex was a 16710 Black bezel, which I flipped for the new 116710 (bad choice, given that my 16710 was a late model with the 3186 movement!!

D’oh!

Is the photo of a 16710? I get a bit confused after the 16700.

16700. 16710 is a GMT-Master II

[swish77]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

My second Rolex was a 16710 Black bezel, which I flipped for the new 116710 (bad choice, given that my 16710 was a late model with the 3186 movement!! Eeeek!) I loved the watch, but I’m drawn to the larger width bezels of the 1675/16750. I’m not sure if the bezel fonts make a difference too. In some shots, though, the 16710 bezels looks just as wide. Certainly, with the later references there is the benefit of the added functions (such as the independently adjustable hour hand etc.), so I do take your point!

Is the photo of a 16710? I get a bit confused after the 16700!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mine is a 16700, which is the last in the line of Rolex GMTs (not to be confused with GMT IIs.) The 16700 has the classic quick-set and does not have an independent hour hand. I much prefer the 16700 because it's more old-school, in my mind anyway, and it's also a little thinner than the 16710 because of the different movement.

Again, you won't get the charm of an acrylic GMT, but it's still a classic with beautiful case proportions, which a lot of us believe were lost with the 6-digit models. They're also much more affordable (relatively, of course).

Good luck in your quest!

[Lonestar19]

... and 0% of the hassle and the uncertainty you have to deal with with valuable vintages watches (other than paying the 25%, of course) - not only vintage rollies, but the coronet-branded watches seem to get an over-proportional level of "drama", I have to agree with.

I have to admit that I've had the same kind of thoughts running through my mind as the OP. I only wear vintage watches and I've just recently begun to foray into the Rolex world. It is frankly scary. I have considered the BBGMT for the very same reasons. For the moment, I'm still geared towards a nice 1675, but I'm only a couple of frustrating email/whatsapp/phone/PM sessions away from throwing my pure intentions all in the bin and picking up what appears to be the closest thing to a vintage Rolex at the nearest Tudor AD.

So, yes, the OP is not the only one asking himself about this all.

The answer is not on an internet forum though. It's in one's own brain and heart...

[MorningTundra]

The degree of “drama” depends in large part on which end of the price spectrum you’re shopping in and how comfortable you are spending at that level. The top end has more risk and reward. This is too “dramatic” for some... and dealers of these high “drama” pieces can be irksome.

On the whole, a 50 yo 1675 is a robust and accurate time keeper if cared for.


Sent from my cracked, broken hand wound phone. IG @morning_tundra

[Richard Carver]

Too much drama in this thread. :)

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by Richard Carver

Too much drama in this thread. :)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[roosvelt]

Drama ? All of the rolex 5 digits are no less drama than a 6 digit. It's all about the seller and condition when considering buying vintage. Tudor modern ref. can't carry a vintage's jock strap!!

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by roosvelt

Drama ? All of the rolex 5 digits are no less drama than a 6 digit. It's all about the seller and condition when considering buying vintage. Tudor modern ref. can't carry a vintage's jock strap!!

Bold claim

I think my confusion matches your intuitions: I’m not sure what the supposed drama is with vintage Rolexes; I was looking to the forum for advice on this matter.

My only experience with vintage was nothing more than what I expected, but I am wondering if the slight mechanical problem and low amplitude was the sort of ‘drama’ to which the post I read was referring. Now, I expected my watch to require a service (I bought it with that understanding), so perhaps I don’t consider that to be drama?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lhanddds]

A properly serviced vintage watch is not a problem and when bought from a good seller, is a very satisfying experience. It will not be cheap however. I like both watches but they are definitely in a different strata.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[harry in montreal]

I'm not sure I understand the concept of Drama. I think many discussions can be stressful for new collectors having made mistakes in buying and sedvicing. I have lots of rolexes and Tudors. I like old Tudors as they use the Rolex parts. I like that. However, they are much more expensive. What do you want, a Tudor gmt or a black 79090? How about 3 Tudor gmts or one 16750? I prefer quality to quantity.

[Swearengen]

I think you will find them too dramatic

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by Swearengen

I think you will find them too dramatic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

How about 3 Tudor gmts or one 16750? I prefer quality to quantity.

Hmmm, good question!

Here’s what I can say. My grail for the longest time was the Cellini dial 16753. I had it and loved it.... but the two tone wasn’t really me. What I loved was the acrylic, wide bezel, low case back etc.

Now my 16753 had a service dial and hands — which I enjoyed due to their functionality (though I understand that this made the watch less valuable). What I also missed, was the functionality of the quick set hour hand.

Now if I’m making the switch, then I have to accept either the lack of functionality or the acrylic and wide bezel (noting that the Tudor does provide me the functionality).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[henrylee]

I’m vote will be a 16710 as they are true work horses.

[harry in montreal]

Wearing a snowflake sub in the pool makes the dial distort. It's very beautiful. I encourage you to buy affordable vintage

[timlaw]

I have the BBGMT and it is a keeper - stunning at its price point

I have also a complete set Z series 16710 coke bezel - stunning watch period!

but I would want 4 times or more the price of the BBGMT to sell that watch


maybe I have been lucky in the 3+ years I have had my 16710 but I have had no drama at all just the joy of owning what I think is THE perfect rolex

[tekno]

The day I looked at the Tudor GMT I left with a LHD Tudor Pelagos, I thought the snowflake hands and cream colored markers would quench my thirst for a vintage watch. Well, they did for 2 weeks or so.

The only drama I experienced was losing $1000.00 in a month because I bought a NEW Tudor vs a watch I really wanted.

A Pepsi bezel 1675/16750/16700 is so beautiful. You can find the later watches for a reasonable price. That is what I would suggest you buy. If you already owned the Rolex Pepsi GMT the Tudor would be a fun watch but it’s not vintage. It’s a brand new watch, it’s a nice watch but it will never be a Rolex GMT.

If you have to justify your purchase to yourself then you will likely end up in a similar spot as me. I am very happy with my last purchase.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by tekno

The day I looked at the Tudor GMT I left with a LHD Tudor Pelagos, I thought the snowflake hands and cream colored markers would quench my thirst for a vintage watch. Well, they did for 2 weeks or so.

A Pepsi bezel 1675/16750/16700 is so beautiful. You can find the later watches for a reasonable price.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There are a number of points about the BBGMT I really like — the position of the gmt hand and lump in particular (I am short sighted, so I really like that the hand extends to the edge of the dial and the lume spot is in a different radius to the plots). But I do het your point about the vintage. I am not really into the patina — though I do get why it’s a thing.

Your watch is lovely! It looks like a service dial, which would be my preference. I love the aesthetics of a vintage gmt, but I need the functionality too. The patina isn’t for me — which in some respects, is a good thing: I won’t need to pay more for a watch that has still got its original dial and handset.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tekno]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

There are a number of points about the BBGMT I really like — the position of the gmt hand and lump in particular (I am short sighted, so I really like that the hand extends to the edge of the dial and the lume spot is in a different radius to the plots). But I do het your point about the vintage. I am not really into the patina — though I do get why it’s a thing.

Your watch is lovely! It looks like a service dial, which would be my preference. I love the aesthetics of a vintage gmt, but I need the functionality too. The patina isn’t for me — which in some respects, is a good thing: I won’t need to pay more for a watch that has still got its original dial and handset.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s an 83 16750 original dial, newer hands. If I was going to try and stay under the 10k mark I would go for an original 16700 vs a all service parts watch. That’s my opinion.

My dial lume is dead dead, it actually annoys me that the hands still light up. I’ll be fixing that soon. A UV light won’t get the dial to light up in the slightest.

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by tekno

It’s an 83 16750 original dial, newer hands. If I was going to try and stay under the 10k mark I would go for an original 16700 vs a all service parts watch. That’s my opinion.

My dial lume is dead dead, it actually annoys me that the hands still light up. I’ll be fixing that soon. A UV light won’t get the dial to light up in the slightest.

Yeah, I know true vintage peeps love the original stuff. For me, I prefer usability and vintage style: the narrower bezel on the 16700 isn’t to my taste and the acrylic crystal on the 1675/16750s is lush!

Is there an indicator when the 16750 switched from a painted dial to a marker pot dial? Did the reference numbers not change to identify the dial difference?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sillo]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

Is there an indicator when the 16750 switched from a painted dial to a marker pot dial? Did the reference numbers not change to identify the dial difference?

Yes, somewhere around the 8.4 million serial range which is the mid eighties.

Originally Posted by swish77

Surely, there's someone out there now who owns a 16700 and a 16710, and a set of calipers, who can confirm the thickness of each watch. Now I'm super curious!

Just measured my 16700. Came in at 11.88mm thick.

[tekno]

Springer has some killer posts about the 1675 and 16750. That’s where I started to understand them more. 1983-1984. I think he wrote 8.4mill serial and later it’s probably going to be a glossy dial watch. There were also 16750s that got gloss service dials.

If you click on his name, and look at his older started threads that is where I started.

I’m not trying to sway your opinion on the Tudor either way, if you really WANT a GMT I think you will be happier buying the Rolex.

[shedlock2000]

Thanks for the search help. I’ll swing by and see what he has posted!

Yeah, I’ve always been a Rolex GMT groupie (as my previous watch list indicates!) I was most happy with the 16753, but the TT was a touch too blingy for me, I think. If I had a suit job, it would probably have stayed; but I needed to have a less flashy piece on my wrist.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk