Review of Rolex GMT Master II 116710 "Ceramic"

[By-Tor]

 

When this gen first got introduced, I was never fully impressed with it. While I thought it was a good looking watch, I still felt that all the magic, mystique and traditions of the classic red and blue Pepsi GMT were instantly swept away. I might be biased, because everything from 1675 to 16710 are my all-time favorite Rolexes. I love that watch so much that I purchased the genuine article just a few weeks ago.

 

My opinion hasn't changed. I actually like the design of this watch, but it's the departure from the classic, legendary GMT that I'm not too excited about. Maybe I'll change my mind when they introduce the classic "Pepsi" model back into the lineup. Just like you can't offer Ferrari with only in British Racing Green, Rolex shouldn't sell a GMT Master without the Pepsi option.

 

 

But besides that, the watch certainly is a good looker and very good replication. This rep has been absolutely all over the place since it was released a few months ago. It is available with the correct hand stack (short: CHS), which means independently adjustable hour hand. Correct hand stack means that the 24h hand is placed above the hour hand. This movement behaves like the gen, and the hour hand moves in one hour increments. But it's also an accident waiting to happen. I have plenty of experience with the CHS, so I decided to opt for the wrong hand stack Swiss ETA movement.

 

The wrong hand stack (short: WHS) version is a "faux" GMT movement, and it doesn't operate like the gen. The 24h hand is placed below the hour hand in the stack, and one time during the day the hour hand and 24h hand "meet". This is when the visual problem with the WHS occurs. However, you can set the 24h hand "meeting point" to say, 2am or 3am if it bothers you. Besides this "meeting point" the hand stack is very difficult to detect without a loupe. The small annoyance with the "faux" WHS modification is that you have to set the 24h hand "in sync" manually. This has been covered in this article. I have developed a good trust in this WHS ETA "bastardization", and I can recommend it to anyone (as long as you really get a genuine ETA).

 

There is an Asian version of the WHS available too, but the reports of that movement have been less than stellar.

 

 

This watch has been discussed throughly, so I doubt I can bring anything new on the table. My good friend Dan (a RepGeek admin) compared this with the gen here, and that superb comparison pictorial tells you everything you need to know. The replication is excellent.

 

The bezel numbers have been improved (they used to be too thick). I'm also very impressed with the dial, which is almost flawless. The Triplock crown isn't perfect (the threads aren't quite apparent enough), but it's very acceptable. Tube looks thick and solid. The 24h bi-directional bezel has a new feature: it moves in one hour increments, and has only 24 clicks. This is perfectly logical for a GMT watch, and definitely a great feature and improvement over the old Master II.

 

 

The biggest flaw on this watch is the non-symmetric rehaut engraving. ROLEXROLEXROLEX should always match with '9, '12 and '3'o'clock markers, and this isn't the case on the rep. The '9 spot is way off target. I find this a bit disappointing, and of course it's not fixable. Big flaw or not... it's another very stupid mistake by the factories. The SELs have been fitted exceptionally well.

 

 

The cyclops magnification also lacks the antireflective coating. Many have applied an AR for their mags, and I'm often amazed how innovative our members are. You can read about Lanikai's experiences with it here and here.

 

The bracelet felt really lousy and cheap when I received this watch. But as usual, there's nothing that a bottle of sewing machine oil couldn't fix. I can assure you, after the "oil treatment" the difference is dramatic. Pour plenty of sewing machine oil all over the bracelet middle links, then twist and bend them like a maniac. Then do it again, and leave plenty of oil on the bracelet overnight. Don't even think about skipping this... oiling the replica Rolex bracelet is absolutely essential modification. The bracelet edges should be gently filed smoother as well. bklm1234 has a good tutorial how to do it.

 

Polished middle links are a bit "so and so" on a tool watch, but GMT Master has never been a "hardcore tool" like the Sub or SeaDweller, so I think they're acceptable and go nicely with the reflective and shiny bezel.

 

 

The clasp is the same as on the Daytona, so it feels solid and heavy compared to the old flimsy design. The micro adjustment  is extremely tricky, because you have to release the adjustment pin from inside the clasp (there are no holes outside). If someone has a good system for it, I'm all ears.

 

 

Is this the best ever otb Rolex replica?

 

In my opinion: no. The classic (and rare) black Explorer II (the same base model that was used to build my franken) is still the king, but this and the WM9 Sub definitely take the second place. The rehaut engraving is a small (but fundamental) flaw.

 

I received this watch a few days ago, and while I have to admit that I'm still not completely crazy about it, Of course this is an instant replica classic, and me being a GMT-geek it was kind of a "must have" in many ways. Generally I'm not too crazy about plain black & white watches, but I really like the highly reflective "ceramic" bezel and the Daytona clasp. This watch has "grown" on me a little, and maybe it's just a matter of time when it manages to fully capture my heart. But there's no way I could ever prefer this over the classic 1675/16710.

 

Thanks to ***Precious Time*** for another flawless transaction and QC'ing this rep for me!

 

[its_urabus]

another great review... on a side note, I almost bought a gen pepsi today... but decided I need to talk to wife first. I should tell you it is all your fault... I will give her your addy if she needs someone to yell at... thanks for the review...

[Ztech]

Great review BT. Thanks for doing it.

[freddy333]

As usual, another excellent review.

[Guest Sql_pl]

Great review! As always.

I am still on the fence with this one....

[dluddy]

Another accurate review BT. I have a CHS from the first batch and it is still working great. Like I told the guys at the NYC GTG, I didn't think I would like it but find that I wear it often and am glad it is in my collection. IT is one of the best replications I think we have seen to date.

Would I pay $6K for the genuine.......NO!

I'd get a classic 1675

[lanikai]

Mahalo to the Master of Reviews !!

I can't wait until we get our AR mags back from Chief.. it should make all the difference

Thanks again BT for the Super Review and amazing pics !!

Aloha~Cheers

Lani

[its_urabus]

dluddy, I know of a 1675 at a boston shop....they want way too much though....

[ubiquitous]

Great review, once again BT!! Thanks for taking the time to put this together

This is a great looking watch, but I am also unsure if this is a watch for me. I find myself to be more of a classics kind of guy and would prefer a 16750 or 16710 over this one...

[By-Tor]

This is a great looking watch, but I am also unsure if this is a watch for me. I find myself to be more of a classics kind of guy and would prefer a 16750 or 16710 over this one...

I agree... I prefer the classics too, but this replication was just too good to ignore.

PS: Thanks all, I appreciate the feedback and comments!

[paulw]

Thanks for another great review By-Tor, I've been waiting for this one.

By the way it was one of your Navitimer reviews that got me involved in the rep world.

I think the only solution here is to have both.

I have always loved the superceded model and was disappointed when the Ceramic was released.

Sort of like when a new model of a car is released and you think, no, like the old one better.

But after a few years you can see that the change had to happen.

It did take a trip to the AD for me to come to this conclusion though.

The feel of the Ceramic is what one would expect of a luxury item: smooth, creamy , and expensive in a way

the previous model doesn't provide.

Just gotta have both!!

[cornerstone]

Another great review thank you!

On first hand inspection what do you make of the "ceramic" bezel on the rep?

[Matte]

ByTor thank you for your efforts in making so good reviews for us

Exceptional work!

[Cats]

Greath review By-Tor.

It was a pleasure to read , as usual .

Carpe Diem

Cats

[Velasco]

Thank you... very helpful review, as always.

[Stephane]

Another accurate review BT. I have a CHS from the first batch and it is still working great. Like I told the guys at the NYC GTG, I didn't think I would like it but find that I wear it often and am glad it is in my collection. IT is one of the best replications I think we have seen to date.

Would I pay $6K for the genuine.......NO!

I'd get a classic 1675

I saw Dluddy's one indeed in NYC and was very impressed with the watch.

Untill then, none of the great photos of our members here made me think about getting one.

But holding one in the flesh was surprisingly great.

By-Tor, thanks for another great review.

It requires a lot of energy and time to publish these.

I'm like you: the 16710 is more my cup of tea.

The ceramic one looks a bit like "on steroid" with the fat CGs and fat hands.

But I wouldn't be surprised it becomes a classic in say 30 years in the end

Thanks again,

Cheers

Stephane

[Guest Sql_pl]

Ok I am close to jump.... just emailed Angus to confirm if he can supply the new batch with slimmer bezel font....

:)

[kire612002]

Its great reading this review while i am waiting the watch to be delivered from PT!

[stevethebest]

By Tor, yor reviews are simply assets to our community.

Personally I am with you and with all the other friends who feel this new Rolex does not substitute the previous versions.

The 16710 is today a new classic and this new thing will never substitute the GMT feeling in my heart.

If I have to say what, I personally do not like the fat hands and hour markers, the blinky ceramic and the shiny mid links, the Rolex Rolex Rolex engraving ... what else? I think I mentioned almost all the new things... Ah yes I forgot the bigger size and the triplock crown

In my opinion this watch shows how for Rolex it is difficult to make something new, to improve some classics.

I had the same feeling when they launched the LV sub, of course.

Maybe I'm groving ... OLD ????

[jamesg]

Great review BT, thank you.

[By-Tor]

Thanks Gentlemen!

@cornerstone: I doubt the bezel is full ceramic, but it has a "ceramic coating", whatever that means. At least that's how it was described. It could be some kind of hard plastic too... but the shine is very respectable.

[hambone]

Mahalo to By Tor for another valuable contribution to the forum. Excellent write up.

[jake48]

I doubt the bezel is full ceramic, but it has a "ceramic coating", whatever that means. At least that's how it was described. It could be some kind of hard plastic too... but the shine is very respectable.

Nice review and GREAT pictures...

I assure you the bezel insert is NOT full ceramic. I am not even sure it is part "ceramic." It is definitely not plastic, however.

When I received my GMT II from PT the "ceramic" bezel had several scratches on it. I contacted PT and he sent me a replacement insert right away. I removed my damaged insert and the best I can tell is that it's some type of two part epoxy paint (like Dupont's Imron) sprayed over the normal aluminum bezel insert - which are found on most of our rep subs. I guess it could be some type of "ceramic" sprayed over the top of the metal insert, but I assure you, the insert is a blend of two types of material, with one of them being aluminum. The insert is NOT one solid material.

Edited October 4, 2008 by jake48

[freddy333]

I agree. It is either topped with plastic or some type of hardened paint. I doubt there is anything ceramic in the insert.

But, whatever it is, as long as it does not get scratched, it looks great.

[Rolecs]

Hi,

thanks for your review, it's really nice to have such guide and to benefite of your experienced opinion

Nevertheless I wasn't able to find the bklm1234's you talk about

The bracelet felt really lousy and cheap when I received this watch. But as usual, there's nothing that a bottle of sewing machine oil couldn't fix. I can assure you, after the "oil treatment" the difference is dramatic. Pour plenty of sewing machine oil all over the bracelet middle links, then twist and bend them like a maniac. Then do it again, and leave plenty of oil on the bracelet overnight. Don't even think about skipping this... oiling the replica Rolex bracelet is absolutely essential modification. The bracelet edges should be gently filed smoother as well. bklm1234 has a good tutorial how to do it.

Could you (or someone else) give me the link?

Thnaks a lot