Rolex GMT 16710 Jubilee 62510H Guide

[037]

Originally Posted by inadeje

The "bird's beak" fallacy

TRF member 037, who is a respected member and, I do not wish to upset or challenge, made the following remark: “The "50" ends differ from yours as they don't have the "bird's beak" shape in the end and are instead fully round and free to move. Yours will butt up against the inside of the end-links and be limited in travel”

Sorry 037, this statement is untrue. Anyone installing the 502T, after my mods above, on the standard jubilee, will note that the so called "bird's beak “actually looks like it’s designed to impede full lateral movement of the bracelet when the bracelet is at 90-degrees to the end link, by stopping movement at exactly the 90 degrees angle. Now, unless you have a pencil wrist and, as such, your bracelet literally descends from the case at an improbable (and impossible) 90-degree angle, then the "bird's beak" fallacy is a myth, that I am happy to bust. Anyone with a human wrist would not have their bracelet exiting the end-link (case) and, falling 90 degrees from the end-link.

I'm confused as to what part of my statement was incorrect. The attached photo makes them look restricted even with 502T endlinks, which is exactly what I expected to happen. Noted in bold above, you repeated the point that I made originally but went on to say that my statement was untrue. You simply used different words to make my same point.

The bird's beaks do, in fact, butt up against the inside of the endlinks that they're designed for. I said they were "limited in travel" which is 100% correct when using their original endlinks. I also said, "it's a small difference but noticeable if you're used to it," which is also 100% true if you're used to how the '50' ends feel on the wrist. Both points are true regardless of wrist size. Even if you still find your setup comfortable, that doesn't refute the point I made originally.

[037]

Double post

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by 037

I'm confused as to what part of my statement was incorrect. The attached photo makes them look restricted even with 502T endlinks, which is exactly what I expected to happen. Noted in bold above, you repeated the point that I made originally but went on to say that my statement was untrue. You simply used different words to make my same point.

The bird's beaks do, in fact, butt up against the inside of the endlinks that they're designed for. I said they were "limited in travel" which is 100% correct when using their original endlinks. I also said, "it's a small difference but noticeable if you're used to it," which is also 100% true if you're used to how the '50' ends feel on the wrist. Both points are true regardless of wrist size. Even if you still find your setup comfortable, that doesn't refute the point I made originally.

Thanks for your post and pm.

You will note that I emphatically stated that I did not wish to challenge your views and, stated that you are a very respected TRF member, which I attest to.

Nothwithstanding, i refer to “Yours will butt up against the inside of the end-links and be limited in travel” and more precisely “and be limited in travel”. This statement is misleading to TRF readers and, I endeavored to illuminate why in my post. Firstly, travel to where 037? The only time the deemed “beaks” limit travel is when the bracelet is at right angle to the end-link. In which scenario do you envisage such a right angle ocurring with the watch on a human wrist? As I stated, what the beak impedes is the bracelet being able to fold under the case back. Furthermore, the two photos clearly demonstrate when the beaks limit travel, which, as I have stated, is at the said, almost 90 degree angle. So, yes, I agree, travel is limited, however, your wording suggests or aludes to readers that this limited travel is in some way detrimental. It is, but only if when wearing the watch, the wrist is so improbably thin, that the bracelet exits the end-link in a downward 90 degree angle. Hope to have clarified and, again, your posts and contributions on trf are excellent.

[037]

I don't disagree with you but my point was intended at pure face value — the '50' ends swivel freely and the bird's beaks have a stopping point.

So, I was confused as to why you said my statement is wrong. If your ends are limited in travel then they're limited in travel. '50' ends are free to swivel beyond. Anyone considering your modification should be made aware of this difference, which was why I mentioned it originally.

[16610v]

Thanks for the great information!

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by 037

I don't disagree with you but my point was intended at pure face value — the '50' ends swivel freely and the bird's beaks have a stopping point.

So, I was confused as to why you said my statement is wrong. If your ends are limited in travel then they're limited in travel. '50' ends are free to swivel beyond. Anyone considering your modification should be made aware of this difference, which was why I mentioned it originally.

Haha Ok I digress buddy.

Disclaimer- Anyone with a wrist the size of a pencil, please disregard my entire thread and DO NOT attempt this.

[037]

Originally Posted by inadeje

Haha Ok I digress buddy.

Disclaimer- Anyone with a wrist the size of a pencil, please disregard my entire thread and DO NOT attempt this.

To be fair, many still seek old 93150 and 78360 bracelets with round ends, pre bird's beaks, simply because they find them more comfortable. That's not tied in any way to wrist size.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by 037

To be fair, many still seek old 93150 and 78360 bracelets with round ends, pre bird's beaks, simply because they find them more comfortable. That's not tied in any way to wrist size.

Comfort is such a subjective matter. Have you seen the array of mattresses sold these days?

Seriously though, I can't attest to variances in perceived comfort. What I can attest to, is that this simple mod renders and perfectly good bracelet, at sometimes 1/3 the cost, useable on a 5 digit Rolex. The point you cited, while vaguely relevant, is not a real world impediment. I believe I have explained to readers, the best I can, that the negative suggested, is in fact, irrelevant in normal everyday use scenarios. Finally, both of us have failed to advise readers that the beak or the rounded “50” ends, are hidden, snuggled, invisible, under the end links, so, can we agree at least that, the suggested impediment is visually invisible with the watch on wrist and, there is zero chance, with the watch on wrist, that the bracelet would be at 90 degrees to the end-link? Truce?

[037]

Well, this is a "guide" after all. It's fair to point out the differences in how the '50' ends fit and function compared to your modified setup, to which I still stand by as accurate and correct. How someone interprets that data is up to them.

[inadeje]

On Oyster




On Jubilee

[inadeje]

These insane prices are the reason I made this thread

[Beckster]

People are free to ask for insane prices but you’d be insane if you were to oblige without doing your research first. You have helped much by creating awareness that there are alternatives. I’d personally try my best to scour the earth to try to get it from RSC. But that's just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dc1030]

Overall that look is on point!!

[toneafficianado]

This is great and useful info to me as someone who has just bought a 2006 Pepsi /oyster and is keen to get the look and feel of a jubilee on it asap. Thanks so much guys!

[rpl77]

Sorry for the silly question..I've searched and, based on prior posts, believe I am correct in assuming that a 62510H "50" bracelet will accomodate either the 502, 502B, or 502T endlinks just fine using the 2 mm bar for the 16710? Do you both agree?

I have a no holes case 16710, and am sourcing 502T endlinks. The bracelet I have is a 62510H "50" but currently has the 502 endlink (no additional stamp).

Originally Posted by inadeje

These insane prices are the reason I made this thread

Originally Posted by 037

Well, this is a "guide" after all. It's fair to point out the differences in how the '50' ends fit and function compared to your modified setup, to which I still stand by as accurate and correct. How someone interprets that data is up to them.

[037]

Originally Posted by rpl77

Sorry for the silly question..I've searched and, based on prior posts, believe I am correct in assuming that a 62510H "50" bracelet will accomodate either the 502, 502B, or 502T endlinks just fine using the 2 mm bar for the 16710? Do you both agree?

I have a no holes case 16710, and am sourcing 502T endlinks/ The bracelet is 62510H "50" but currently has the 502 endlink (no additional stamp).

Yes, the '50' ends denote the 2.0mm through holes in the last links. You can use 502, 502B or 502T endlinks with it. You'll want 502T for your 16710T case.

HTH

[rpl77]

Originally Posted by 037

Yes, the '50' ends denote the 2.0mm through holes in the last links. You can use 502, 502B or 502T endlinks with it. You'll want 502T for your 16710T case.

HTH

Much appreciated!

[lee fowler]

Originally Posted by inadeje

Today my 502T end links arrived from my trusted OEM parts source in Germany (see his data below) so, I am finishing my guide for TRF members, who wish to fit a period original Jubilee bracelet to their 5-digit GMT or, any other Rolex 5-digits. As I explained earlier in the thread, owners have the option of pursuing (in my view) the very expensive “50” bracelet which, as I have remarked, offers zero external difference to the standard jubilee. Or, acquiring a perfect and, easier to source, standard Jubilee 62510H and, carrying out this 10-minute modification.

The "bird's beak" fallacy

TRF member 037, who is a respected member and, I do not wish to upset or challenge, made the following remark: “The "50" ends differ from yours as they don't have the "bird's beak" shape in the end and are instead fully round and free to move. Yours will butt up against the inside of the end-links and be limited in travel”

Sorry 037, this statement is untrue. Anyone installing the 502T, after my mods above, on the standard jubilee, will note that the so called "bird's beak “actually looks like it’s designed to impede full lateral movement of the bracelet when the bracelet is at 90-degrees to the end link, by stopping movement at exactly the 90 degrees angle. Now, unless you have a pencil wrist and, as such, your bracelet literally descends from the case at an improbable (and impossible) 90-degree angle, then the "bird's beak" fallacy is a myth, that I am happy to bust. Anyone with a human wrist would not have their bracelet exiting the end-link (case) and, falling 90 degrees from the end-link.

Conclusion

My bracelet is the exact period of my watch, in all intents and purposes, unless you use a microscope and, knew what to look for, you would not even see these supposed "bird's beak". In fact, when 037 mentioned it, I dismantled my friends watch again, which has the “50” bracelet and, after putting the standard Jubilee 62510H by the side of the “50”, it’s almost indiscernible to the naked eye. Essentially, two tiny 0.5mm, what I would call, Butt Stops (not beaks) on the standard Jubilee 62510H which, in fact, seem to serve a purpose, by disallowing the bracelet to fold entirely under the case back.

I would therefore urge members to utilize the standard Jubilee 62510H which, as I have said, is infinitely lower in cost than the “50”, with ZERO difference, other than this now mythical and, almost invisible, butt stop (beak) that, the untrained eye would have serious difficulty even seeing.
I attach the photos of the 502T, photos of the bracelet up against the end-links in both positions and, the final result of my GMT Stick Dial with its pristine Jubilee and, new end links.

Total cost

Pristine Jubilee from the period $760
502T end links in sealed Rolex blister $360 (I found SH but, there was only $100 difference)
Files $11

Total Cost 1131 USD

I hope to have helped and, if anyone has any questions, reply to the post or, PM me. I would be glad to help. [/I]

__________________________________________________ ________


I'd rather spend the $1300 or $1500 for a correct bracelet. I know they're out there in that price range since I've sold a couple of GMT Jubilees the past couple of months. The other thing about the GMT Jubilees is there is always someone looking for one so they are easy to sell and recover your investment when you are ready to move it.

Most guys that I know that can afford a nice GMT II can afford to spend a few hundred more for a correct bracelet.

I have to agree and if it were me I would want the correct bracelet also.

[subprimero]

Very helpful information! Thanks!

[JSO1]

Sorry for the bump, but wondering if anyone can confirm how a 63600 super jubilee will fit onto a 16710 with lug holes. For reference, I have a K-serial 16710 with lug holes (and a 78790A SEL bracelet currently). Has anyone tried fitting a 63600 bracelet to this type of 16710, and if so, (1) does it actually require different spring bars, and (2) does it sit flush on the back of the case?

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by JSO1

Sorry for the bump, but wondering if anyone can confirm how a 63600 super jubilee will fit onto a 16710 with lug holes. For reference, I have a K-serial 16710 with lug holes (and a 78790A SEL bracelet currently). Has anyone tried fitting a 63600 bracelet to this type of 16710, and if so, (1) does it actually require different spring bars, and (2) does it sit flush on the back of the case?

As far as I’m aware your gmt has 2mm spring bars and the 63600 bracelet need 1.8mm. Its as simple as getting the 1.8s and it will fit fine.

[mmaggi]

Thank you for this extremely informative post.

Being an owner of a no-hole 16710, I'm wondering if going to a RSC would be less headaches for more or less the same price.

[PatRols]

Hi all - I revive this thread. Thanks for the info!
I am still a bit confused though regarding the endlinks. I only find 555 ones and not 502. Would that work anyhow? I have a lug holes 16700 Pepsi from 1991.
Many thanks!

[wappinghigh]

Such a great thread! Thanks!

[ancientmariner]

Originally Posted by PatRols

Hi all - I revive this thread. Thanks for the info!
I am still a bit confused though regarding the endlinks. I only find 555 ones and not 502. Would that work anyhow? I have a lug holes 16700 Pepsi from 1991.
Many thanks!

555 end links are for the Datejust. A Datejust Jubilee bracelet will go on a GMT and look ok but it is not a perfect fit and uses thinner spring bars.
I would hang on for the correct GMT Jubilee.
One option is to get a new one from RSC which can be cheaper than second hand.

[bobabreath]

I have an F-serial 16710. I called RSC and they said a new jubilee (without trading in old bracelet) would be about $1250.

[Rado63]

Wonderful thread. Five digit fun!

[Anthony7929]

Very helpful! Thanks!

[dysert]

Keeping the Thread alive. I am going to ask Dallas RSC if they will sell me a Jubilee bracelet for my M series 16710. I will report back.

[inadeje]

Originally Posted by dysert

Keeping the Thread alive. I am going to ask Dallas RSC if they will sell me a Jubilee bracelet for my M series 16710. I will report back.

How did you get on?