Food for thought...

[JoJo35]

Anyone notice any problems with this piece?

[FxrAndy]

Nope, for a moment i thought that it should have the non adjustable movement fitted, but then i thought the movement is right, then i thought about the gmt hand but then the big triangle is right,

6 mil serial is right for the year isnt it?

Willing to learn though, what is it JoJo

[alligoat]

Looks fine to me also. Other than a few typos in the description, I see nothing wrong.

[JoJo35]

...maybe I should change my opening thread to "Does anyone see and major problems with this piece!" x2

[FxrAndy]

16750 was produced was produced 81-88 so if his date is correct then it would have to be a 1675?

[preacher62]

Don't see it...maybe the cyclops is not AR'd???

[JoJo35]

16750 was produced was produced 81-88 so if his date is correct then it would have to be a 1675?

His date is obviously incorrect, but that would be too easy

[FxrAndy]

ok what am i missing, i know it will be something simple and large but what it it, i have been checking against the below info

Ref. 16750

Production Period: 1981-1988

Model Name: Rolex GMT Master

Caliber: 3075, 28800A/h, hacking, quickset

Pressure proof to 100m/330ft

Bracelet: Oyster 78360, Jubil

[ken fingerlove]

Are the crown guards or crown off? they look weird

[ubiquitous]

I don't see a whole lot wrong... Correct range serial for a 16750, dial is genuine, hands are good and in the correct stack for a 16750, crown, CGs are fine, caseback is correctly signed 'PATENTED' for this era watch, 3075 of course checks out.

If anything is really out of line, it's the MKII dial in a case/serial as low as 6.3M. But that could have been swapped in at some point or another during service, restoration, etc. While not technically correct for the specific production range watch, it's still a genuine dial and still plausible.

[McRae]

Shouldn't the bezel be 24 clicks only? It's in between now?!

[HauteHippie]

Seems to be a franken-gen in the wrong case?

[ubiquitous]

No clicks on a 16750... It's a bi-directional bezel...

Case looks correct; engravings are consistent with a 16750...

[HauteHippie]

So a 16750 can have a 6.303,XXX serial?

[ubiquitous]

Yeah... 6.3M is okay. The only thing that looks off is... REGISTERED DESIGN instead of ORIG ROLEX DESIGN.

But the actual fonts used for 16750 are consistent, notably the '5'...

[HauteHippie]

Hummmm...

[ubiquitous]

For sub-7M cases, REGISTERED DESIGN is okay, BTW...

[JoJo35]

...geezus, you guys gotta do your homework

[ubiquitous]

Please do enlighten us then, B.

[HauteHippie]

...geezus, you guys gotta do your homework

I'd rather just cheat off of you.

[JoJo35]

I'd rather just cheat off of you.

lol

I'll make you guys squirm a little longer. I can't believe nobody picked this up yet. I feel sorry (kinda) for the guy that ends up buying this piece.

[FxrAndy]

Do you make your wife wait in suspense like this JoJo, Why don't we have a teasing smiley

[ubiquitous]

Any longer, and I'll probably just lose interest... It is just a 16750 afterall...

[redwatch]

Ok, I just don't think I can sit staring at pics of 16750's any longer. I just can't see it! What is the glaring issue we are all missing??

[Nanuq]

Boy I dunno... maybe his date font is off a smidge? I've had people question mine too.