1675 vs. 16750

[5512vs5513]

Hi guys,

I've noticed that some pricing on Pepsi 16750 has been climbing quite a bit. I've seen them even priced higher than regular Pepsi 1675. Is this normal? Are they more rare? Just to clarify I am not referring to the transitional models, but rather the very early one's. And lastly if you can provide some guidance of what your be "fair" pricing for each, assuming late 70s to early 80s in terms of production.

thanks as always.

[alwayshere]

Probably condition - the 1675 should be the more pricey model out of the two. I'm assuming you are referring to the comparison of older 16750 vs. matte dial 16750 (not the WG indexes).

On another note, the quickset feature of the 16750 is far more convenient!

[springer]

Originally Posted by 5512vs5513

Hi guys,

I've noticed that some pricing on Pepsi 16750 has been climbing quite a bit. I've seen them even priced higher than regular Pepsi 1675. Is this normal? Are they more rare? Just to clarify I am not referring to the transitional models, but rather the very early one's. And lastly if you can provide some guidance of what your be "fair" pricing for each, assuming late 70s to early 80s in terms of production.

thanks as always.

Based on my experience from ownership of a couple of these models:

The matte-dialed GMT 16750 was made for approximately four years. The GMT 1675 was made for over 20 years, so it is easy to see which one would have the lower production numbers. Personally, if you look at the 1675s, excluding the gilt era, you will find the 66-70 models probably bring the highest prices for exceptional examples except for the radial-dialed Mark III 1675s which command a premium. Nice, late '60s watches can push $10,000 plus as well as some examples from later years. As with all things Rolex, condition and originality is a major factor in pricing.

The matte 16750s have become very popular the past few years - probably due to the quick-set date feature. Nice watches from these models are also pushing $9500 to $10,000 since superior examples are not easily found in the vintage market.

[Jetkopite]

For sure the 16750 matte dial are the more rarer than the 1675s as JP stated.. I love mine and always accompanies me on my trips around the globe..

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Jetkopite

For sure the 16750 matte dial are the more rarer than the 1675s as JP stated.. I love mine and always accompanies me on my trips around the globe..

WOW! That is a stunning example, from dial to case to insert. Nice!

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by swish77

WOW! That is a stunning example, from dial to case to insert. Nice!

I agree, it is indeed!
I guess we Pilots have exceptional taste.

[lee fowler]

I can't get enough of mine either.

[adam78]

Here are my two babies (16750 on right)

[sensui]

Originally Posted by adam78

Here are my two babies (16750 on right)

Nice patina contrast.

I think it'll be a matter of time for the 16750 matte dials pricing to climb quickly also being a transitional model with small production number compared to 1675.

[R.W.T.]

The facts are:

The matte 16750 is produced in considerably fewer examples than matte 1675.

There were GAZILLIONS of matte 1675's made.

The 16750 is a better watch. It's more accurate and the quickset date is much more desirable imho.

Not saying that a 1570 isn't a great movement it is. It's the watchmaker's favorite to work on...but it is not a 3075 with regard to timing. They can be very accurate but on the machine...the position error it's just not as close 90% of the time.

The watches to the first glance are indiscernible.

No contest for me.

[oldLeatherNeck]

Originally Posted by R.W.T.

The facts are:

The matte 16750 is produced in considerably fewer examples than matte 1675.

There were GAZILLIONS of matte 1675's made.

The 16750 is a better watch. It's more accurate and the quickset date is much more desirable imho.

Not saying that a 1570 isn't a great movement it is. It's the watchmaker's favorite to work on...but it is not a 3075 with regard to timing. They can be very accurate but on the machine...the position error it's just not as close 90% of the time.

The watches to the first glance are indiscernible.

No contest for me.

100%

[pleasentville]

here a 16750 as new.
http://i1383.photobucket.com/albums/...psuofnmaxg.jpg

[Loevhagen]

16750 even with WG has increased in price lately. Why do I know? I sold one 6 months ago...

[Max72]

The quickset is really handy

[Charlie3755]

I like my quick set version. This one courtesy of jP - @Springer - a couple of years ago.

[5512vs5513]

Many thanks everyone for the responses!!

[Franks07]

To me both the 1675 and 16750 are very special timepieces that I know will always have a place in my modest collection. Both watches feel and look great on the wrist...oh, and they both tell time too

[BawlaDK]

Both very great watches and I have to agree that the quick-set IS convenient. Of the two the 16750 is def. more rare as it was produced for a very short period of time. However the 1675 might be considered the most vintage out of the two... Id be happy with either one and own a 1675 that I love.

[Luckyl]

Plan to sell my 16750.. But now I change my mind..

My two babies.. Brother and sister..

[pleasentville]

[Luckyl]

16750 was my first rolex.. Ever though to sell it after acquired a 1675. But now i change my mind.. Can't let go these 2 beauties..


Sent from my MI 5 using Tapatalk

[Juggernaut]

I love those side by side comparison shots...boy, the tall coronet of the 16750 is the quick indicator for me. The second being the bolder seconds indices of the 1675.
Besides those 2 things, they look very similar.