So I need some help with an upcoming decision...

I have been looking/saving up for my birth year (1985) Rolex recently in hopes of finding one after the New Year. I have been eyeing the 5513 for the last few months and pretty much had my mind made up.
Then, last week, I was talking to one of my best friends back home (who got my into luxury watches a few years ago) and he just got a 1985 16760 coke gmt master 2 in. It is at his watch guy having the crown tube replaced now. It comes with the full set and will be ready in about 6 weeks.
Now the gmt coke was never really on my radar, because I didn’t realize my birth year was a coke and not a Pepsi bezel. Also, now that I’ve seen the history and “firsts” of this model, aka, Fat lady, I can’t get it out of my mind....
This is not going to be a watch I flip or something I ever plan to get rid of, so which do you think would be the “better” birth year watch? (I’ll probably only get one)
Either one of these purchases is probably going to require me to sell my Skyfall AT 41.5, so this Rolex with be part of a 2 watch collection for a while along with my 3592.50 speedy.

Any feedback here is appreciated!

Both pictures below are not of actual watches, just internet searches. (won’t have one until after it’s returned from service)

 

Hi there - both look like decent examples, it will come down to which one you will enjoy wearing most. As for my opinion, the 16760 full set is more desirable and rarer reference than the WG 5513. The most desirable WG 5513 is the last year production (1989) which commands a slight premium among some collectors.

Finding a clean 16760 is not easy as most dials and hands are prone to defects. Judging from the single picture, the hands clearly show normal wear for this reference but the MKII dial seems to be blemish free with beautiful even patina. The insert is also original with fat font serif font with a nice fade. You'll need to make the determination on case and lugs etc.

Best of luck and keep us posted.

 

It's really up to you, as there is no 'wrong' choice between the two, though maybe the GMT would work well alongside the Speedmaster, rather than having two non-date watches?

You'll find examples of both with defective dials as 1985 is in the early days of the gloss, white gold surround dials and the manufacturing process was yet to be perfected. I'd personally avoid spider dials, matted dials and the like, and look for a perfect glossy dial.

 

Good point, I do like having at least one date function watch.

 

Down to you really and which one shines to you. Personally I am leaning to the GMT... Good luck with your choice!!!

 

So I finally have an update here. I now have the pictures of the 16760 but it will be about a month before I can purchase. Any feedback here would be appreciated. I know the bezel insert isn’t original and the hands look (to my eyes) to be replacements, albeit old ones. Feel free to correct me. This is a full kit. I think I’ll be able to buy it for about 15k USD. Good deal or wait?

thanks in advance!

 

The insert and the hands on the GMT are deal breakers.

 

Looks like an MK2 dial and depending on price, it's really not that attractive as @Larry S points out. The insert should have a nice serif font and the hands look like they have been relumed or exposed to water. Some people like the dial defects, much like the 'spider' dials, I personally don't care for them. Lastly, the case also looks like it's seen one too many polish wheels.

Again, depending on price, you can do better than this.

Here is my MK2 for comparison.

 

I don't like that pitting (or gloss bubbling) on the dial, insert or hands on the GMT. I would take the 5513. That being said ask for a pic of the 5513 on normal light without contrast changes because the initial pictures are both contrast enhanced, which is why the dials look so wholesome and pure black.

If you do like the GMT eventually those bubbles will pop and just show the matt dial under it, but it's going to take a while.

You can always find a coke or a Pepsi from another year that is a little better as an example. As stated before these mid 80's get tend to have dial issues.

 

Thank you all! That’s kind of what I figured but it’s good to have some confirmation. I mainly wanted it as a birth year watch, but I want it to be in good condition. Another reason why I love this forum, thanks!

 

Agree with all of the above. Go for condition otherwise you will probably continue to hunt for one in better condition.

I am from 1985 as well and bought an 85’ 16800 that had a nasty ding on one lug that the seller didn’t disclose. I kept the watch (worked it out with the seller) and didn’t fix the damaged lug because I wanted to keep the case unpolished.

Eventually I grew tired of the damaged lug and had it laser welded at the RSC and the case polished. Because the watch is now both welded and polished I probably wear it more and thus enjoy it more than I would had it been in perfect “original” condition.

So you don’t need to get a perfect one but be careful with replacement and damaged parts that will probably bother you like ugly replacement hands and very damaged dials. Scratches and dings can often be fixed so you won’t notice

And here my not perfect but very lovely 16800 from 85

 

I agree. Thank you. A lifetime watch like that is worth waiting for. Thanks for sharing!
I guess the hunt is the most fun part anyway....

 

The hunt often doesn’t stop even though you find “the” watch Good hunting and don’t worry something will come up.

 

I mostly collect subs and GMT’s ... I would say neither are great. Of course it always depends on your budget, but I would be patient and wait for a good example. It can take time but they will show up. It is worth waiting and getting a complete set. It is more expensive but the nice thing with Rolex, especially GMT’s and Subs, and that they only go up, so it’s a good investment.