ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

chuckhustmyre · 28 May 2015, 12:44 AM

This is from the website GMTMasterHistory, and I think it's inaccurate. Wasn't it the regular hour hand, not the 24-hour hand, that became independently adjustable with the GMT Master II, ref. 16760, in 1983, the so-called "Fat Lady"?

The website says this:

"With the new caliber 3085 the 24-hour hand became Independently adjustable."

acarriles · 28 May 2015, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckhustmyre

This is from the website GMTMasterHistory, and I think it's inaccurate. Wasn't it the regular hour hand, not the 24-hour hand, that became independently adjustable with the GMT Master II, ref. 16760, in 1983, the so-called "Fat Lady"?

The website says this:

"With the new caliber 3085 the 24-hour hand became Independently adjustable."

I believe YOU are correct!

T. Ferguson · 28 May 2015, 10:52 AM

I suppose it is two ways of saying the same thing i.e. the two hour hands were no longer fixed in synch and could be set independent of each other. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

GradyPhilpott · 28 May 2015, 11:12 AM

The way I set mine is to set the 24 hour hand and the minute hand to the correct time with the bezel at 12:00, then I can set the hour hand and the date. The 24 hour hand and the minute hand are synced, while the hour hand and the date are synced.

Therefore, I believe that the OP is correct.

Tools · 28 May 2015, 12:05 PM

I suppose it's semantics more than anything; however, you are correct. The dial hour hand can be independently set; when you set the 24 hr hand they all go along for the ride...

The idea though is that the two hour hands have been decoupled.

fishingbear · 28 May 2015, 12:08 PM

Both, depending on which way you perceive setting the hour hand or the 24 hour GMT hand.

bbressler · 28 May 2015, 03:00 PM

I've seen it put that way in other places as well, and always wondered why. Agree with OP that it makes more sense to say the hour hand is independent since the minute hand is tied to the 24 hour hand

77T · 28 May 2015, 04:07 PM

Other websites hosting GMT History articles have said it better:
"At last delivering on the logical next step for a multi-time zone watch, the 16760 featured the new cal. 3085 movement, which de-linked the hour hand from the large triangle 24-hour hand for instantaneous setting of the second time zone on the face of the watch itself."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

28 May 2015, 12:44 AM	#1
chuckhustmyre "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2015 Real Name: Chuck Hustmyre Location: Baton Rouge, LA Watch: Rolex Submariner Posts: 36	GMT History problem? This is from the website GMTMasterHistory, and I think it's inaccurate. Wasn't it the regular hour hand, not the 24-hour hand, that became independently adjustable with the GMT Master II, ref. 16760, in 1983, the so-called "Fat Lady"? The website says this: "With the new caliber 3085 the 24-hour hand became Independently adjustable."

28 May 2015, 10:52 AM	#3
T. Ferguson "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Left Coast Posts: 7,025	I suppose it is two ways of saying the same thing i.e. the two hour hands were no longer fixed in synch and could be set independent of each other. Six of one, half dozen of the other. __________________ *Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.*

28 May 2015, 11:12 AM	#4
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,460	The way I set mine is to set the 24 hour hand and the minute hand to the correct time with the bezel at 12:00, then I can set the hour hand and the date. The 24 hour hand and the minute hand are synced, while the hour hand and the date are synced. Therefore, I believe that the OP is correct. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

28 May 2015, 12:05 PM	#5
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,514	I suppose it's semantics more than anything; however, you are correct. The dial hour hand can be independently set; when you set the 24 hr hand they all go along for the ride... The idea though is that the two hour hands have been decoupled. __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

28 May 2015, 04:07 PM	#8
77T 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: PaulG Location: Georgia Posts: 42,016	Other websites hosting GMT History articles have said it better: "At last delivering on the logical next step for a multi-time zone watch, the 16760 featured the new cal. 3085 movement, which de-linked the hour hand from the large triangle 24-hour hand for instantaneous setting of the second time zone on the face of the watch itself." Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ Does anyone really know what time it is?

28 May 2015, 12:08 PM	#6
fishingbear 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: George Location: Alabama Watch: GMTsSubLVEx2SDDayt Posts: 4,549	Both, depending on which way you perceive setting the hour hand or the 24 hour GMT hand.

28 May 2015, 03:00 PM	#7
bbressler "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Texas Watch: Exp, GMTII, Sub Posts: 1,184	I've seen it put that way in other places as well, and always wondered why. Agree with OP that it makes more sense to say the hour hand is independent since the minute hand is tied to the 24 hour hand

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)