Forums Latest Members
  1. 64Wing Feb 10, 2021

    Posts
    1,145
    Likes
    1,931
    Ok you Rolex people. Rather than cause the "So this is the GMT thread" to go sideways by asking this question, I thought it best to make this one.

    Background: my go-to heavy-hitter is my Speedmaster. I've got some other lesser pieces that I knock about. But I'm looking into snagging a birth year piece to commemorate a professional achievement.

    So, through my fragmented research, I've been unable to discern whether I would enjoy/put up with a 16700 or a 16710. Seems there's an onslaught of opinions about the date set function. Then, of course, there's lume, bezel insert, lugs, etc to consider.

    Moreover, rather than try and soft through multiple threads consisting of single-sentence ping pong matches, I thought perhaps I could appeal to you all for some help on the issue of weighing the merits of each reference against the other.

    Anybody have/had both? Can you make a compelling argument for one vs the other? (Spoiler: I can only afford one, and this is a 6-12 month future window. But fortune favors the prepared).

    Should've mentioned: looking for a 1990 year production.

    Thank you in advance!
     
  2. cvalue13 Feb 10, 2021

    Posts
    3,965
    Likes
    8,270
    Sorry to derail thread immediately but: are you saying you were born in 1990??

    No offense intended, just that something about your posts (and handle) always smelled of boomer :D ... and here I am finding out I could be your poppa :whistling:

    Anyway, back to the Rolex discussion at hand ...
     
    Rumar89 likes this.
  3. 64Wing Feb 10, 2021

    Posts
    1,145
    Likes
    1,931
    I'll take that as a compliment, sir! I'm often presumed to be more senior than my age, but it seems the effect is amplified by my writing style.

    Out of curiosity: is it simply my wordsmithing, or the seasoned hints of snark what lie beneath? ::bleh::
     
    spinnaker11 likes this.
  4. cvalue13 Feb 10, 2021

    Posts
    3,965
    Likes
    8,270
    No, more like at some point you were yelling for someone to get off your lawn and to go back to their “own country”** and I got a grandpa vibe

    **never actually happened

    Damned millennials seeming like damned boomers is damn conundrum for us damned gen-X’ers
     
    Om3ga321, Rumar89, 64Wing and 2 others like this.
  5. Nobel Prize Spell Master! Feb 10, 2021

    Posts
    6,806
    Likes
    13,348
    I have a 16710 from 2004 ( my sons birth year) love it.

    Both watches where being sold on 1990, so you’re good there. The 16700 carries a higher premium.

    if it’s a watch you’ll wear on rotation the quick set date will come handy, really handy.

    Other than that, assuming both are 1990 versions there’s not that much difference between them.

    The 16710 does give you the option of the coke bezel, which I love. You can source a coke a Pepsi and a black bezel straight from Rolex under 100 bucks with a 16710, but they will only give you a Pepsi ( and I think black) with the 16700. This only matters if you’re the type of person that likes to change things around.... and if you want an fairly inexpensive original bezel right from Rolex. I got a coke bezel at Rolex center in 5th Avenue and kept the original Pepsi. All while I waited. ( the new one went to my brother in law in exchange for his original 2004 coke.

    Other than those two things ( bezel option and quick date versus quick hand set) I would only look for price points to guide your purchase.

    good luck.
     
    Edited Feb 11, 2021
    vintage hab, KAP and cvalue13 like this.
  6. KAP Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    288
    Likes
    791
    There is not a lot of difference between these two models. The choice comes down to those few differences that best meet your need.

    The case size and appearance were very similar between the GMT 16700 and 16710. The GMT 16700 was produced from 1988 to around 1999. The movement was a Caliber 3175, and had a quick-set date feature and one alternative time zone. There were two available bezels. One was the Blue/Red "Pepsi" and the other was the black. The GMTII 16710 was produced from 1989 to 2007. This one has a caliber 3185 and 2 additional time zones by using an independent hour hand but it does not have the quick set date feature. The 16710 had 3 bezel options with the "Pepsi", black and the Black/Red "Coke." Any of these bezels can be used on the 16700 and 16710.

    Despite the long run of the GMT 16700, I've read it was produced in smaller quantities than the GMT II 16710 counterpart, and the 16700 was sold at a lower price. Fewer produced watches may factor into future valuations. There's a lot of variables that go into current pricing for both models. I suggest to pay attention to condition, condition, condition and look for a full set. That may be very difficult to find when adding your desire for a birth year 1990 model.

    A while ago I asked myself the same question of which model as you and determined the quick set date feature best met my needs since the watch would be in rotation and it would be a rare occasion that I would need to track 3 time zones.
     
    mbeast likes this.
  7. stevec14 Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    2,513
    Likes
    10,841
    Agree with both of the above gents. For me I went with the 16710, no holes. Just a personal preference.

    the lack of quick date didn’t bother me. It’s very quick to whizz through the quick hour hand to roll fwd so never any issues.

    It’s a great watch in either configuration. Go for it :thumbsup:
     
  8. spacemission Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    323
    Likes
    142
    16700 is a true GMT like a 1675 or 16750. By the way, if you need it for trip you have to do hacking for a local time setting.
     
  9. mbeast Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    253
    Likes
    568
    I would go for the best example you can find of either, especially if you're looking for a specific year of production. Given the choice between perfect examples of both, I would lean towards the 16700 with it being the last of the GMT Master (rather than II). The 16700 also has a fractionally thinner case, though it's almost imperceptible.
     
  10. cvalue13 Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    3,965
    Likes
    8,270
    And you’re suggesting the 16710 isn’t a true GMT based on it having/not having what?
     
    stevec14 likes this.
  11. cvalue13 Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    3,965
    Likes
    8,270
    While we’re accounting for 16700 vs 16710 can we lard in the vs 16750?
     
  12. 64Wing Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    1,145
    Likes
    1,931
    Sure? I'll admit to not knowing much about it. Teach me!
     
  13. cvalue13 Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    3,965
    Likes
    8,270
    That's what I was saying!
     
    ChetBaker likes this.
  14. Nobel Prize Spell Master! Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    6,806
    Likes
    13,348
    An interesting one the 16750. It’s the actual Magnum PI model. To me it makes sense to go with this reference (which is transitional) if you catch the earlier ones with the Matte dial. Otherwise I like the 16700 better. The latter glossy 16750 with it’s famous flaw of the lacquer breaking into a spider Webb pattern is just BS in my opinion. It’s a cracked dial. I don’t see spider webbing as a good thing on my window, my watch or my wall. (Just me)

    As mentioned before (and I’m kind of ashamed for not noting it myself) the 16700 is the last of the master line. With the 16710 (technically really the 16760 first) starting the master II line. The 16700 is like the equivalent to the 14060M on the sub no date line. The last reference to carry the original pin hole small cased DNA following the 5512 and 5513. While the 16710 (60) starts the modern lines of GMT Masters. Actually you could argue timeline - wise it is more like the 5513 with the 14060 starting the modern line.

    Anyway, I’m confusing things by adding the sub line to the conversation but it’s just to draw a reference with a more familiar line to most.

    Going back to the GMT line. The 16760 (first coke, Fat Lady or Sophia Loren GMT) did have a small change on case size, further making them a step into the modern GMT master line (the master II). This was to house the new movement (can’t remember the actual movement #) I believe the case was brought back to dimension on the 16710. If you can find a 16760 take it. They’re lovely watches. No Pepsi though, just coke.

    The 16710 line is so big on constant changes that it really is a “choose your piece” type of reference. Tritium no tritium, Luminova, súper luminova, this, that and the other. The advantage of this is that you can still find them at a good price. I love mine from 2004 but it’s not a specially valuable watch all things taken into consideration.

    There are some deeper factors in terms of movements or leading hand etc through all these references from the end of the 1675 to the end of the 16710 but, to be honest, I’m not really versed to that depth and any research I can do on my end is the same anyone else can.
     
    sxl2004 and JwRosenthal like this.
  15. ATWG Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    1,900
    Likes
    5,646
    All good discussion here, it all comes down your preference, all glossy GMT's are great and each has it's own unique capability to serve as slight differentiator. I own all of them and love wearing them, but there are distinct differences.

    The 16750 is by far my favorite as it offers a thin case and wears like a vintage 1675 with the added bonus of a hacking date. The production numbers are low which have driven prices high in the last few years. It was last produced in '88 which won't fit in your birth-year requirement. There are two versions, matte dials which are now commanding prices comparable to late yr. production 1675's (think of MK V's) and there is the glossy which is what you're after. I absolutely love the case as it conforms to your wrist and offers great versatility. Both can be fitted with pepsi or black insert, the crystal maintains it's plexi heritage which to me is a big deal as this was the last of the series. These crystals are now discontinued and you'll need to be aware of replacement costs, although still reasonable at the moment.

    The 16760 aka Fat Lady, is the first GMT II with last yr. production of '88 as well. The case in comparison to the 750 is much thicker, hence the nickname. These are the most expensive glossy dials in the market due to low production as well as known issues with dials. Finding a clean all original Fat Lady is not easy but can be a quite interesting hunt. The patina on the dials are absolutely breathtaking which is why it attracts many collectors.

    I won't add more to what's been said about the 700/10 other than, you can really buy great examples with beautiful patina for your production year. Over the years, I have observed the E,X,N production years to have beautiful patination on 16700 dials. I personally love my N serial 700 as the patina offers a great vintage look with the added bonus of hacking date.

    Expect to spend any where between $8.5K to $13K depending on condition and patina.

    Keep us posted.
     
    Davidt and Nobel Prize like this.
  16. MtnMarine Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    481
    Likes
    1,324
    Out of these 2 choices, I would choose the 16710. But ultimately it’s boils down to personal preference and over all condition of the piece. You can’t go wrong either way. Good luck!
     
  17. 64Wing Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    1,145
    Likes
    1,931
    Now you enablers are having me wanting a 16750...though it doesn't fit the birth year idea. Though, there is one for sale someplace that says mfg 1990. Not familiar enough with Rolex to be able to tell if that's even possible.

    I can say I really like patina with the tritium. The case of the 16750 seems preferable to me. Drilled lugs or not, doesn't seem to bother me either way.

    Looks like I have some soul searching to do...
     
  18. 64Wing Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    1,145
    Likes
    1,931
    Might I also add that it's depressing seeing a watch my age that actually shows patina...
     
  19. Nobel Prize Spell Master! Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    6,806
    Likes
    13,348
    It could have been sold in 1990 even if produced earlier.
     
    JwRosenthal, Davidt and MtnMarine like this.
  20. 64Wing Feb 11, 2021

    Posts
    1,145
    Likes
    1,931
    Good point.