preacher62 Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 What about this $6,400. 1675? Looks like one of our reps to me. Which one of you guys sold this to him? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rolex-GMT-Master-Steel-Pepsi-Cola-Bezel-Ref-1675-/231148100994?pt=Wristwatches&hash=item35d1801d82 GMT arrowhead is not equilateral , rehaut is wokky, date mag is weak, bezel looks like WSO bezel. Maybe I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionsandtigers Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Yikes Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monffo Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Look at that cyclops !!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionsandtigers Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Can tell you about ten things wrong just from a glance Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacher62 Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Think I'll send him an email and ask for a pic of the movement. He has some very nice watches but only 200+ sales with 100% satisfaction. He obviously thinks it is gen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacher62 Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I sent this...Just wondered if I could see a pic of the movement.Thanks!Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceejay Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Lovely fit of them end links! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeromatic Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 It has a rep look to me factory fresh look about it even if its got a gen movement it does not look like an authentic vintage watch to me the dial and bezel looks aftermarket or replica ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceejay Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Gone... Sent from my toilet using Andrex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F.Castro Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Many gen 1675 have that endlinks that are fitted like that, it depens on wich endlinks that are used! And i also seen gens with cyclops instaled like that! Case and bezel looks OK, sorry guys this one isent fake, its real. Look at the rehult, no fake that i have seen have the dial so close instaled to the plexi, so for me this one is real. The dial is also gen i think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panerai153 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 It's still up, I just looked at the photos. I'm sitting here with my gen 16750 in hand comparing. To me the watch is genuine, the case looks good, the 5.3mm crown fits correctly between the CG's which is a big tell with most rep cases, because the rep 1675's use 6mm crowns. When you fit a 5.3mm crown in a rep case there is a big gap between the crown and the caseguards. Dial looks good, However, the GMT hand is not correct. I have looked at a lot of photos of the 1675/16750's and I have never seen a genuine GMT that has that arrowhead shape. Personally, I would not touch this watch with a bargepole, at least not before seeing some really good movement photos. This could very well be a gen case and dial with a rep movement/ hands. Or it could be all gen but the hands. Someone could have replaced them with aftermarket hands a long time back, AFA the Cyclops, mine is a tiny bit crooked as well, probably when the watch was serviced last, the watchmaker didn't get it perfect. The endlinks fit is terrible, mainly because these are not proper GMT endlinks. The 555 endlinks are for a Datejust, they are shorter and the holes had to be opened up for the bigger springbars. What this whole deal looks to me like is and old Rolex that someone(s) over time replaced worn out parts with incorrect parts. Probably took the watch in because the old bracelet and endlinks were worn out and replaced it with another Jubilee with the wrong endlinks, just using what he had, or could afford. same thing with the GMT hand, may have been replaced at some point by a watchmaker who used these hands rather than genuine Rolex parts. That is a best case scenario, because if everything is really genuine except the hands, it would be a pretty easy task to get it back right. Worse case scenario, it's got an ETA or Chinese movement inside and it's a franken. Even considering best case scenario, it's way overpriced for a GMT with incorrect parts. What you have to remember guys is there are tons of old Rolex watches lying around that folks bought back in the 1960's,70's and even 80's, that were bought for 500-1500 USD. The owner wears the watch for a lot of years, and then it stops. Needs a service, he takes it in to and AD and finds out that a trip back to a RSC is going to cost 500-1000 USD, maybe more than he paid for the watch years back. can't affords that so he takes it to a local watchmaker who can do the service, but doesn't have a Rolex parts account, so he tells the owner, "I can put it back to just like new for 200.00 USD, but the parts I use won't be Rolex, but they look the same". This guy isn't a Rolex fanatic, he just likes his old Rolex, but he can't/won't spend 1K on a service, so the local watchmaker gets it back running and the owner is satisfied. Years later he or his wife or children decide to sell the old watch. They sell it and it gets advertised like this one. Eagle eyed Rolex fanatics spot the problems and the watch is suspect, which it should be until proven otherwise. In a lot of cases, the buyer doesn't see the faults until they are pointed out. Sometimes the original buyer gets caught like this. If the buyer knew about the bad endlinks, non Rolex hands, etc. and he didn't disclose the problems, then he is a crook, because he is concealing known defects. If on the other hand, he didn't know, then he is innocent, but gullible. He didn't do his due diligence before he bought or traded for this watch. At any rate, he has a watch that isn't correct that he's trying to sell for a pristine 100% correct watch price. Good luck with that!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceejay Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Ahhh. couldn't open it with taptalk earlier. Yeah, when I first looked at it, I too thought that the crown and crown guards were very good. Then I looked at that bezel profile and agreed with the previous poster that it looked like a WSO. When I built mine I was torn over the bezel, there seemed to be many different subtle difference in the notches on the bezel. I went with the WSO but have never been happy with it and swapped it yesterday (my build thread is about to be updated) The end links just screamed wrong to me. But I am more than happy to be corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panerai153 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Ahhh. couldn't open it with taptalk earlier. Yeah, when I first looked at it, I too thought that the crown and crown guards were very good. Then I looked at that bezel profile and agreed with the previous poster that it looked like a WSO. When I built mine I was torn over the bezel, there seemed to be many different subtle difference in the notches on the bezel. I went with the WSO but have never been happy with it and swapped it yesterday (my build thread is about to be updated) The end links just screamed wrong to me. But I am more than happy to be corrected You might be correct, the bezel may have been changed at some point in time. Correct again on the end links, they are definitely wrong. Needs a set of 550 end links to be correct, however the 550 is for fat spring bars and the jubilee on this watch will not accept fat bars. this is a bracelet that was taken off a Datejust. the jubilee bracelet that is used on the GMT has a 50 stamped on the last end link next to the springbars, this designates "fat springbars welcome here"!!! So what we have here is a GMT that for whatever reason over the years has been clapped together with aftermarket and incorrect Rolex parts. Probably not to deceive, but to keep the old watch running and on some owners wrist. I'm afraid the seller is going to have a lot of explaining as to why he didn't disclose all those problems in his description? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionsandtigers Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Show me another with that dial and that case, especially a "68" with cgs that look like that and I'll eat my words. Rehauts wrong as well. But if you think it's gen well ok. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionsandtigers Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 And where's the movement pic? I'm afraid at best this is some Franken but it's far from a gen 68 1675 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F.Castro Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I dont know about 68, it can be a case from the mid 70's, but thats a gen case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F.Castro Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I dont think its nothing wrong with that rehult, what do you think looks wrong Lion? Here is mine from 67/68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionsandtigers Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Ok. If you say so Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F.Castro Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 No, realy, i can be all wrong, but i dont think that i am. Thats way asked you to explain what you think is wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionsandtigers Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I could be wrong as well but there are a few things that are bothering me. First, I find it hard to believe that it's an original case. The cgs look like they just came out of the mold. I have NEVER seen crown guards that perfect on a 40+ year old watch. Especially if they've been polished which if that case IS gen, then it would have had to be by the cleanliness of it. Secondly, the rehaut is a little to tall for a 1675 and is missing the lip, or at least it's undetectable from the photos, where the crystal meets it at the opening. From the look of the photos, it runs up right to the crystal which is incorrect. Third, the coronet and the rolex printing on the dial. I have seen a lot of variations of this as many of you have. And I am not saying it's wrong because I am not an expert on this model, but the letter spacing is jacked and I cannot find an example of the crown on any 68 gmt. Look at the ono in chronometer. The letters are mashed together. And the of f in officially. Look at the dial you posted on the example above and compare it to the one we're discussing. C'monnnnnn. Rolex has done a lot of weird things, especially back in the 60s and 70s but their QC has always been impeccable. I have an extremely hard time believing this watch is gen. MAYBE a Franken but to me, nothing there is gen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionsandtigers Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 And look at the back if the cgs. You REALLY think this thing is gen? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielv2000 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 i am no expert but i just glanced for 15-20 seconds. The insert is aftermarket, the cg's look like they just came out of the factory and the cyclops looks off. Remember I am no expert and only took 15-20 seconds. What do I know. But, just based on that, I would have moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionsandtigers Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Ah someone's on my side Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacher62 Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 And where's the movement pic? I'm afraid at best this is some Franken but it's far from a gen 68 1675 Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI sent message asking to see pic of m'ment. He said he would get it to his watchmaker and have pic by midweek. I will probably let him off the hook as I am not interested in the watch. Don't want to cost him money or trouble. Also, I think the CGS look more sub-like, which I believe is a problem with a Yuki case. I thought the rehaut was wokky, as well. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F.Castro Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Hello Prea Pleas dont let him of hook, i would realy like to see what pic he will email you. If this is bull he had it coming. Edited February 3, 2014 by F.Castro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now