Opinions on these two 1675

[clock]

Hello,

I would appreciate feedback on these two 1675’s.

Which would you prefer?

These are the only pictures.

Thank You

[RC2]

I like both. Depends on patina u want


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul]

Lightly patina'd dial or a heavily patina'd dial .... totally your preference.

Difficult to determine from just one pic. Has the first watch had a hard time on the polishing wheel perhaps ?
Pics suggest heavily polished lugs and crown guards - that would deter a few buyers

[clock]

Better pic?

[clock]

Is there rusting around the outer crystal between 5:00 and 7:00?

[springer]

They are both nice watches with replacement inserts and bracelets on both and an aftermarket crystal on the first one pictured. One has been polished a little more than the other, but there aren't many 50-year-old museum pieces out there anymore. Price them accordingly, buy one, and you'll be in the club!

[Paul]

Your fresh pic makes the lugs look a bit better but we are still just guessing really.
I'd be asking for quality macro pics of each lugs and the crown guard area.
A good seller will be happy to provide those for you.

Most collectors accept that old Rolexes have usually been polished. Some still present well - others would be quite hard to live with.
Most flaws in a vintage Rolex can be fixed too - an overpolished case is really a no-fix item though.

Here's a pic poached from a FS post here on TRF in recent days - credit to nbtimes.
It's a 16660 so quite different from a 1675 but it shows the angle that would really help you if you are working off pics rather than holding the watch in your hands.

[clock]

Originally Posted by Paul

Your fresh pic makes the lugs look a bit better but we are still just guessing really.
I'd be asking for quality macro pics of each lugs and the crown guard area.
A good seller will be happy to provide those for you.

Most collectors accept that old Rolexes have usually been polished. Some still present well - others would be quite hard to live with.
Most flaws in a vintage Rolex can be fixed too - an overpolished case is really a no-fix item though.

Here's a pic poached from a FS post here on TRF in recent days - credit to nbtimes.
It's a 16660 so quite different from a 1675 but it shows the angle that would really help you if you are working off pics rather than holding the watch in your hands.

You're 100% correct on the pictures. Those are the only ones that were sent to me from a dealer. Tomorrow I plan on seeing these two in the metal.
Thanks to those that responded, I know a lot more now.

[Vincent65]

Not enough pics, but I prefer the second one - better case.

[PoderEsBueno]

They both look good however i would also go for the better case. Good luck

[Kingair]

#2 for me

Love that patina

[Jetkopite]

I would go for No2 love that patina and the case looks like minimal polishing on it.. Crown Guards look good.

[Frogman4me]

Need more pics like others have stated but I love the patina on the 2nd one and it appears to have a better case also.

[rolstaff]

I think the crown guards of Nr. 1 is too much polished.

Most important thing of a vintages is case and dial…...

[dwheelie]

both look fine

[watchcrank]

I like dial on first. Should be an earlier serial number, year 1.6-2.X. Case polished more.
Second nicer case, dial is OK, looks a bit dirty from scan but could be lighting.
I'd wear either if price is in line! M

[CrownMe]

#2 for me. Nice patina and thick case. Nice crownguards

[sea-dweller]

#2 also

[clock]

Purchased #2. Should receive it later this week and will post more pics.
Does the first watch have a period correct fat font insert?

[buenosdias]

Originally Posted by clock

Purchased #2. Should receive it later this week and will post more pics.
Does the first watch have a period correct fat font insert?

Congrats
Hope to see some pics soon The 1675 is such a lovely reference and cool watch.....love it!

Concerning your question: Both have later blue-back service inserts.

[Vincent65]

Congrats! - later service inserts

[PoderEsBueno]

Congrats, can't wait to see wristshots

[RC2]

Number 2 is very nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clock]

Is the insert of watch #2 period correct?

[springer]

Here is a late 1960s to early 1970s fat font. Notice the difference in the 8s compared to the watches in the first post. The top loop is smaller and oval shaped. Neither photo in the first post is fat font. Mid 1970s is thinner but is still a red back insert.

See photo below.

[PoderEsBueno]

Here is mine from '72

[RC2]

Originally Posted by springer

Here is a late 1960s to early 1970s fat font. Notice the difference in the 8s compared to the watches in the first post. The top loop is smaller and oval shaped. Neither photo in the first post is fat font. Mid 1970s is thinner but is still a red back insert.



See photo below.

Another stunner watch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clock]

Originally Posted by springer

Here is a late 1960s to early 1970s fat font. Notice the difference in the 8s compared to the watches in the first post. The top loop is smaller and oval shaped. Neither photo in the first post is fat font. Mid 1970s is thinner but is still a red back insert.

See photo below.

It's clear the top two watches do not have the fat font insert.
I need to have the watch in hand (hopefully tomorrow or next week)
and post the serial number.

[iclick]

Here's mine (2.32m, late 1969) with original FF insert, MK1 dial, hands, and most other things you can see except the band. Question for those with this genre: Does your date wheel have closed 6s and 9s? Also attached is the date wheel out during last service. Mine is original AFAIK, and if changed during service along the way I was not informed nor charged for it.

[iclick]

Correction on above post: Whereas I stated my GMT as "late 1969" it is in fact stamped "IV68" on the case back.