1972/3 "1655" Inquiry

Posts
6,832
Likes
13,796
Hello Everybody,

Here's an interesting one. I have a friend looking to unload a couple of watches and he asked me for advice. so I'm asking you all for advice as it is not a reference I can confidently vouch for. This is NOT an uncle post. He does want to sell it but I am just doing due diligence for now. Should the basics line up I'll make the effort to open to check and photograph the movement, but I don't want to do that at home because....I don't want to do that at home

For what I can gather it is a 1972/3 1655. Condition is good. I can't see the movement yet but it is working perfectly. Current owner has no service history. It has box and papers although I have to take a look there because the only paper looks legit but name is erased. Also I lack the knowledge to know if this is the exact paperwork for this model on this year.

Serial is 3,5xx.xxx which aligns with the year.

So far so good but I am not that familiar with different iterations and the bezel font seems different to what I am used to see.

Also, no bracelet, head only.

Opinions?
Edited:
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,796
Actually I did find the font on a 1974 so I feel better now. according tot he databases 3 million serials should be around 74 but I see some 4M on that year.

Can anyone shed more light on this watch?
 
Posts
4,043
Likes
13,944
Papers are 8.1m so it should be an 81 or 82.

Look like a later one based on dial too.

Is he selling? I'd love a crack at it.
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,796
I actually think the papers and tag are from a gmt master and not this piece, while the box and watch serial and font does place it on 72/73.

Yes he is selling. But first I have to get a good grasp on what he has there.

He is not a carefull man and he had a fat lady get so I think when he sold that one he gave the wrong papers out.
Edited:
 
Posts
4,043
Likes
13,944
Makes sense about papers.

I think it is a 2nd iteration dial which aligns and bezel looks correct. Chamfers are a bit soft, but it looks pretty decent.