ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
24 February 2011, 03:11 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 11
|
Going to buy a GMT2 ceramic next week, have some questions
Hello everyone, next week ive promised myself to buy a 116710LN, GMT2 ceramic. Please share some of your thoughts, this would be my first rolex.
I have two options: One is from December 2009, V-serie for: 6675 USD The other one is from April 2008, M-serie for: 6081 USD One of my thoughts: If the 2009 is a better deal since it wont need service as soon as the 2008 one. Are there any difference between the M and V series? I really appreciate if you experts look in to this, Thankz |
24 February 2011, 03:22 AM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: Eli
Location: Long Island
Watch: 16610
Posts: 117
|
Go with the cheaper one. You'll service it eventually (if you plan to hold on to it) so not sure if the newer watch with higher price tag justifies it.
|
24 February 2011, 03:22 AM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 19,706
|
Watches are the same...
You need to consider the specific condition of each watch. Good luck!!! |
24 February 2011, 03:23 AM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Munich
Posts: 106
|
Buy the M-Serie, there is almost 600 USD difference and this watch doesn't need a service so soon.
Services are overrated! :-) |
24 February 2011, 03:35 AM | #5 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: netherlands
Posts: 3,703
|
The only difference could be Ⅱor ll
XELOR |
24 February 2011, 03:52 AM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Real Name: Steve
Location: Albany NY
Watch: Blue Bezel SubC
Posts: 1,511
|
I would buy the M series....I DID buy a M Series Sub LV!
__________________
K-TT Datejust, Random Blue Bezel SubC |
24 February 2011, 03:54 AM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: USA
Watch: GMT
Posts: 189
|
If they are in close to the same condition, buy the M. I bought mine brand new from an AD (an M) in Oct. of 2009. So the serial number might not be an accurate predictor of when the watch was bought new.
|
24 February 2011, 04:11 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 11
|
Thank you all for your advice!
How about the price i can get them for do you think its ok? |
24 February 2011, 05:16 AM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Jeremy
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Watch: 16610 V
Posts: 511
|
assuming both watches are of equal quality and both are brand new, i would buy the M based on the 10% difference in price.
|
24 February 2011, 06:04 AM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: netherlands
Posts: 3,703
|
|
24 February 2011, 06:18 AM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 11
|
Thank you! Yes, the 2009 has the ll instead of II, i wonder what is more desirable. Both watches are not brand new :(
|
24 February 2011, 06:19 AM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 11
|
Picture of the 2008 one,
|
24 February 2011, 06:39 AM | #13 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: Eli
Location: Long Island
Watch: 16610
Posts: 117
|
I personally like the stick GMT 2 than roman numeral. But with $600 price difference, go with M.
|
24 February 2011, 07:25 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 19,706
|
Wow. I did not know the GMT II Cs varied the fonts for the Romans.
|
24 February 2011, 07:43 AM | #15 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: West-siide!
Watch: it buddy!
Posts: 334
|
I read that the older font variation denoted different movements inside (ie blue parachrome, etc). Could that still be the case on the new ones?
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.