Correct hand stack?

[kernow]

I keep thinking about buying a Rolex GMT. Now looking at a few TD web sites I find that most have the incorrect hand stack, i.e. the GMT hand being below the hour hand rather than above it.

Then Puretime came good and have the correct hand stack. I placed an order only for it to fall through before payment. I'm still waiting for them to get back to me as to the reason why the order was rejected.

I emailed another TD who came back and said that the correct hand stack is not available. When I pointed them to the Puretime version I was told that yes, it's available but is unreliable and hence the reason why they have chosen not to sell it. So, has anyone a Rolex with the correct hand stack, is it reliable?

Thanks all.

[Cromag]

Here's what Angus told me a few months ago.

Those I am selling are super reliable, they are made by the movement specialist who made the SA3135 movement.

But other than the movement and the others are no good

[freddy333]

I assume you are talking about the GMTII & not the early/original GMTs, which had the GMT placed at the bottom

 

 

I have no experience with Angus' version, but my CHS GMTIIC, which is 5+ years old, was 1 of the 1st batch made with the CHS &, other than the GMT arm becoming loose on its tube (a common problem with rep hands), it has been running well & keep good time

 

 

However, most CHS GMTs failed shortly after delivery or if the GMT function was used often (I have only used the GMT function twice - once when I received the watch to test it & once again a few years ago when I accidentally turned the crown the wrong way while changing the date). If you want a CHS GMT, I would recommend checking with Andrew or Josh for their opinion & buy with the understanding that you are taking a gamble.

[kernow]

Thanks for the comments both. Very useful. And, yes I'm talking about the GMT II.

It was Andrew who advised against it! I'll have a ponder and probably take a chance.

[StormTooper4]

Get the IHS its much more reliable and you seriously wont notice it

[Cromag]

Get the IHS its much more reliable and you seriously wont notice it

IHS IS mostly why I don't own one. The tell is just too much for me.

[panerai153]

I know that we are all anal about the % of authenticity with our reps, but sometimes we forget that 99.9% of the population truly cannot tell a Rolex from a Times, and furthermore they don't care. I live in a small town, and over the past 35+ years that I have lived here, I bet  I haven't seen over 50 Rolex watches on the wrist of folks here, including visitors. I have seen exactly one GMT outside of mine and that was owned by and orthopedic surgeon, and he's no longer here. I suppose if you live in a big city, and/or you are in a situation where you are surrounded by a lot of guys wearing high end watches, you would either have to wear genuine watches, very accurate reps, or walk around with your hand in your pocket all the time!!

 

I doubt that 80% of the guys who own a genuine Rolex GMT could tell you the hand stack sequence without looking down at their watch. I would love to have a good reliable CHS movement, but to me the more obvious tells on this watch are the bezel/insert and crystal, some dials and the lume. AFA the hand stack, only  two times a day when the hour hand passes over the GMT hand on the IHS movement  is the inaccuracy noticeable, otherwise it requires a real close look at the watch to notice the hand stack. I'm not saying this is inconsequential, but it wouldn't prevent me wearing my GMT out in a crowd. 

[Cromag]

@Panerai153

I agree with you. It's just that those little things bug me. Not others looking at my watch but me. The pearl numbers in the gen insert are sweet to see. The IHS on the other hand is something that I believe we just recognize as something being off regardless of whether we know what it is. It's just one of those things and whether I knew it or not it just looked different for some reason. Now that I know, it bugs me :-) haha

[kernow]

Maybe it's something small and I agree that you'd only see it twice a day, but it would bug me, I just know it would. As to bezel etc, I guess I could go gen if I needed to. I really don't know why, but IHS would get me, just knowing would be enough. lol I guess it's horses for courses as there are some lovely reps of the GMT II

[ceocorona]

I know that we are all anal about the % of authenticity with our reps, but sometimes we forget that 99.9% of the population truly cannot tell a Rolex from a Times, and furthermore they don't care. I live in a small town, and over the past 35+ years that I have lived here, I bet  I haven't seen over 50 Rolex watches on the wrist of folks here, including visitors. I have seen exactly one GMT outside of mine and that was owned by and orthopedic surgeon, and he's no longer here. I suppose if you live in a big city, and/or you are in a situation where you are surrounded by a lot of guys wearing high end watches, you would either have to wear genuine watches, very accurate reps, or walk around with your hand in your pocket all the time!!

 

I doubt that 80% of the guys who own a genuine Rolex GMT could tell you the hand stack sequence without looking down at their watch. I would love to have a good reliable CHS movement, but to me the more obvious tells on this watch are the bezel/insert and crystal, some dials and the lume. AFA the hand stack, only  two times a day when the hour hand passes over the GMT hand on the IHS movement  is the inaccuracy noticeable, otherwise it requires a real close look at the watch to notice the hand stack. I'm not saying this is inconsequential, but it wouldn't prevent me wearing my GMT out in a crowd. 

 

 

Well said!