In need of second opinion on this 16760

[omar-rye]

Hi there, I'm planning to check out a 1985 GMT 16760 tomorrow and want to gather some second opinions in case I've overlooked anything. The serial number is 84*****. It features an open 6 & 9 date wheel and a gloss dial. The clasp is 62510h, and the end links are 501. I’m still waiting to get the date code on the clasp. While I haven't seen many photos, I'll be viewing it in person tomorrow. According to the seller, it has never been polished and received a service 8 years ago by an independent. Given the limited information, what would be a fair price for this piece? It’s watch only. Thanks in advance

[Dan S]

The hands look a little funny to me. Can you take a UV lamp with you?

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by Dan S

The hands look a little funny to me. Can you take a UV lamp with you?

Funny you say that because I was thinking the same thing. I am taking a uv light with me tomorrow.

[springer]

Dial is later than 8.4 million serial number. It has been changed at some point - probably because the early ones were prone to corrosion.

[omar-rye]

Because of the i in Swiss?

[TimeToGo]

.
Pictures are awful. Do you have anything better?

62510 with 501s?

[Old Expat Beast]

Bottom-right lug looks on the short side.

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

.
Pictures are awful. Do you have anything better?

62510 with 501s?

Sorry, it’s 502

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by springer

Dial is later than 8.4 million serial number. It has been changed at some point - probably because the early ones were prone to corrosion.

Can you please pinpoint why? I found this post on an old thread with a 846** serial from 1985 that has the same dial as the one I'm looking at (unless I’m missing something). The one I’m looking at has a 849** serial.





https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=537129

[TimeToGo]

.
It could very well be, but a sharper picture will help.

[springer]

The Rolex manual lists 593 end links for the Fat Lady, while I'm sure others will work too.

Again, regarding the dial, the one currently on the watch is much later than what is correct for the era of the given serial number. But, if you think it is correct, then do what is right for you. You asked for opinions and I've given mine based on many years of ownership with these models and other GMTs.

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by springer

The Rolex manual lists 593 end links for the Fat Lady, while I'm sure others will work too.

Again, regarding the dial, the one currently on the watch is much later than what is correct for the era of the given serial number. But, if you think it is correct, then do what is right for you. You asked for opinions and I've given mine based on many years of ownership with these models and other GMTs.

No problem. I just asked how you came to that conclusion so we can all learn something.

[CTech]

The dial on the watch has a shorter crown, rounded G in GMT-MASTER and the I in SWISS lines up with the 31 minute mark, all consistent with a dial called Mk 3 thought to be used from serial numbers from about 9.5 million to R, so late 1986 to 1988 or thereabouts.

A watch with a serial number around 8.4 million would not have had this dial originally but would have had a Mk 2 dial with a taller coronet, I not lining up with the 31 minute mark, etc.

The thread that you pasted part of shows the different versions at the top of the page:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=537129

[omar-rye]

Understood and I accept that information, but how do we explain Lee Fowler’s one owner GMT with a MK2 dial and a 846** serial?

[CTech]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

Understood and I accept that information, but how do we explain Lee Fowler’s one owner GMT with a MK2 dial and a 846** serial?

Do you mean Lee Fowler's with a Mk 3 dial and 846*** serial?

Probably a dial change, but without documentation I doubt anybody can know with certainty whether the watch had that dial originally.

One owner and unpolished doesn't mean never serviced, never had replacement parts, etc.

It's possible the dial was changed at some point because the original one was corroding as Springer has pointed out.

There is thought to be some overlap in two dial variations being used at the same time around 1985/1986 so there is a slight chance that it is original but there are so many watches with serial numbers a long way after 8.4 million that are fitted with the MK 2 dials that it seems extremely unlikely.

[springer]

Originally Posted by CTech

Do you mean Lee Fowler's with a Mk 3 dial and 846*** serial?

Probably a dial change, but without documentation I doubt anybody can know with certainty whether the watch had that dial originally.

One owner and unpolished doesn't mean never serviced, never had replacement parts, etc.

It's possible the dial was changed at some point because the original one was corroding as Springer has pointed out.

There is thought to be some overlap in two dial variations being used at the same time around 1985/1986 so there is a slight chance that it is original but there are so many watches with serial numbers a long way after 8.4 million that are fitted with the MK 2 dials that it seems extremely unlikely.

The longer you are around vintage, one thing that you'll observe are the inconsistencies with some "original owner" watches where something does not seem correct or out-of-place for an "original, one owner" watch. Whether it is a dial, bezel insert, bracelet, end links or whatever, discrepancies in one owner watches happen because something was changed by someone or somehow during the life of the watch which was not documented.

Remember, 30, 40 or 50-years-ago, these were just regular watches worn by their owners. They didn't worry about originality when some visible part was changed - functionality was the priority. Changing parts out back then was not as important as it is now that these vintage models have become collector grade watches.

One thing that was common with some of the GMT and Submariner dials was the style of dial coronets found during a particular era. As an example, the Submariner and GMT dials from the early 1970s shared a very similar dial coronet with each other. This style of dial coronet for the GMT 1675 was referred to as the Mark II and Mark 5 on the Submariner 1680 as well as being found on the Submariner 5513.

The style of the coronet found on the OP's Fat Lady dial first appeared during the later 1980s and continued in use for a couple decades on both GMTs and Submariners.

[omar-rye]

Thank you all for the much needed info. I really appreciate it.

[omar-rye]

Quick update: I've gone ahead and bought the watch. Armed with the valuable information you all provided, I managed to negotiate a decent discount. Here are the photos for your enjoyment and critique. I'd also love to hear your thoughts on what you believe would be a fair price in today's market, or what you'd personally be willing to pay for this example. It'd be really intriguing to compare it to what I paid. Thanks in advance









































nothing glows after removing uv light










What's your opinion on the case? Would you say it's possibly been acquainted with a polishing wheel at some point in the past?

[jcnashz]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

Quick update: I've gone ahead and bought the watch. Armed with the valuable information you all provided, I managed to negotiate a decent discount. Here are the photos for your enjoyment and critique. I'd also love to hear your thoughts on what you believe would be a fair price in today's market, or what you'd personally be willing to pay for this example. It'd be really intriguing to compare it to what I paid. Thanks in advance





What's your opinion on the case? Would you say it's possibly been acquainted with a polishing wheel at some point in the past?

Great pickup! Hands and dial seem to be period correct. Hard to tell if it has been polished - looks like it might've been, but if it was, it was done well. Enjoy it in good health!

Here's my 16760 from 1984/85.

Consider getting the lume on the hands stabilized...the Tritium on the hands on watches from this era start to crack and ultimately fall out of the hands.

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by jcnashz

Great pickup! Hands and dial seem to be period correct. Hard to tell if it has been polished - looks like it might've been, but if it was, it was done well. Enjoy it in good health!

Here's my 16760 from 1984/85.

Consider getting the lume on the hands stabilized...the Tritium on the hands on watches from this era start to crack and ultimately fall out of the hands.

Thank you. Yours look great by the way. I definitely need to get the hands stabilized. I just had my 861 Speedy serviced by Archer Watches, and he stabilized the hands on it. It’s nice not having to worry about the lume falling out

[springer]

Originally Posted by jcnashz

Great pickup! Hands and dial seem to be period correct. Hard to tell if it has been polished - looks like it might've been, but if it was, it was done well. Enjoy it in good health!

Here's my 16760 from 1984/85.

Consider getting the lume on the hands stabilized...the Tritium on the hands on watches from this era start to crack and ultimately fall out of the hands.

To jcnashz.....

You need to read the complete thread, and once you do, you'll realize the dial is not correct. It is a different dial than what you have on your Fat Lady. Both your watch and the OP's watch are from the same time frame. The OP's dial should be like the one on your Fat Lady.

[Scaramanga74]

I´d be tempted to say it has had a polish at some time. However, it´s looking nice. Now tell us the price :)

[1675-David]

Very handsome watch, well done!

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by Scaramanga74

I´d be tempted to say it has had a polish at some time. However, it´s looking nice. Now tell us the price :)

Can’t tell you the price in case I need to sell it to you one day

Originally Posted by 1675-David

Very handsome watch, well done!

Thanks

Originally Posted by springer

To jcnashz.....

You need to read the complete thread, and once you do, you'll realize the dial is not correct. It is a different dial than what you have on your Fat Lady. Both your watch and the OP's watch are from the same time frame. The OP's dial should be like the one on your Fat Lady.

Because of your contribution to this thread, I factored it in when I made the seller my offer and saved a good chunk, so I am very appreciative of you and your knowledge. Whatever your conclusion about this piece may be, I respect it. I'm not trying to prove you or anyone wrong. Im just a rookie and I know my place. My question is: isn’t the serial number an approximate date of when it was stamped on the case and not when the watch was assembled in the factory? Is there not any room for discrepancies and overlap? Should we not take into account that Rolex assembled these watches by grabbing whatever parts were available as they needed to ship them out without much regard for continuity? Or did they follow a strict parts and numeric protocol?

If a 16760 with a 8.9 or even a 9.35 serial and an MK3 dial appears tomorrow, can we confidently dismiss it as a replacement dial since MK3 dials are typically associated with serial numbers between 9.46m and R? Or is there potential for overlap, considering the possibility that the watch was assembled and shipped at any point in the mid 1980s?

[watchfreak207]

For whatever it's worth, my 16760 has a serial 8.45M and a Mk3 dial as well.

[gates]

Nice watch, if i were to swag a number id put it in the $12k-$13k range, i have a 1987 that i had rolex change the dial and hands on in 2005 during service (lume) and id say that dropped the value into the $10Kish range. No matter its my first rolex and ill die with it.