GMT OPINION: Should I get a Ceramic or Pre-Ceramic GMT Master II? First Rolex

Posts
294
Likes
271
Hey gentry,

I'm aiming to get my first rolex and first luxury (non-vintage) watch towards the end of this year. The frontrunner model (which recently was the Milgauss) is now the black bezel GMT Master II, but I'm undecided between the current gen 116710 vs the most recent discontinued 16710... would love to get people's feedback! I'm looking for an everyday watch, corporate suit & tee+jeans.

Thoughts:



Pre-Ceramic 16710 (~$6.5k Full Set Mint/Excellent Condition with SEL):
- Great vintage inspired look, love the proportions, I also have smallish wrists, 6.5 inch. Timeless
- unassuming, and versatile - looks amazing with natos too, and is not too flashy
- Aging patina potential, would love a 'ghost' ish dial one day
- Would only go the SEL bracelet, which bumps up the price. Clasp is okay and does the job... for the price, not great.



Supercase 116710 (~$6.0k Full Set Mint/Excellent Condition)

- Great wrist presence, feels solid and hefty
- Ceramic bezel, while not vintage inspired, looks great IMO also in a different way, perhaps more dressy and luxe
- Bracelet/Clasp... just the best I've tried on. The new gen Rolex bracelet/clasp combo are by far the best I've seen on any modern watch. This factor alone becomes borderline a dealbreaker

Overall... I was very surprised to see the price of the 16710, the supercase is pretty much the price I expected, but the black bezel pre-ceramic is going for MORE money with a full set... they're not particularly rare (to my knowledge) and not that old, I guess it's just very very popular.

They're two very different watches, and I've tried on the supercase at the AD and liked it very much. Originally I thought the case was too big, but it's very "tool-watch-lux"... So I've found I enjoy the wrist presence for what it is, and frankly it doesn't wear as big as I thought it would. The case definitely fits smaller and more comfortably IMO than a Milgauss or Datejust2, which I found surprising given how beefy it looks in photos.

Unfortunately there are no 16710's in sydney or melbourne that I can track down to try, and even if there are, they're usually pepsi bezels....

APOLOGIES for the essay, but I think just purely given the price, I'm leaning slightly towards the Supercase! What do you think??

 
Posts
250
Likes
575
Hi,
I can't say anything about the GMT. But I recently bought myself the latest ceramic Sea-Dweller. I really fell in love with the deep black & shiny bezel. It just looks awesome. And besides that the micro adjustment clasp adds quite some comfort to wearing it.
In the Omega section people are paying ridiculous prices for adding that amount of comfort to their "old" watches 馃榿

So if I were to chose I'd definitely buy the ceramic one.

Regards from Germany
Thomas
 
Posts
9,683
Likes
15,256
Hi,
I can't say anything about the GMT. But I recently bought myself the latest ceramic Sea-Dweller. I really fell in love with the deep black & shiny bezel. It just looks awesome. And besides that the micro adjustment clasp adds quite some comfort to wearing it.
In the Omega section people are paying ridiculous prices for adding that amount of comfort to their "old" watches 馃榿

So if I were to chose I'd definitely buy the ceramic one.

Regards from Germany
Thomas

Hmm $100 to add the feature to a watch which costs half the price in the first place, outlay $100, saving over Rolex $3k. Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me!

That aside, read up on the ceramic before jumping in. There are plenty of people including a respected U.K. independent dealer who think that the pip on the GMT ceramic bezel is too fragile and it very expensive to replace: basically you need a new bezel. There have also been tales of cracked bezels. Yes ceramic is much harder than the old aluminium bezel but it also never deforms, it cracks or shatters and is also about 10x the price if it gets damaged.
Edited:
 
Posts
2,149
Likes
6,642
I would go for 16710 as it is more versatile. You can change the insert quite easily to a Pepsi, Coke or Black. Here is my full set with all 3.
 
Posts
886
Likes
1,032
I would go for 16710 as it is more versatile. You can change the insert quite easily to a Pepsi, Coke or Black. Here is my full set with all 3.

X2 !
As good as it gets...
 
Posts
13,035
Likes
51,978
Get both! In all seriousness my 2013 ceramic is my sport, chores, all weather, travel watch. It's tough and durable. My 1675 is still a vintage watch so while it may be a little tougher than the rest of my fair weather vintage collection, operating mode is vintage. Even though the seller had it serviced and tested before shipping it to me it's not going near the water.
 
Posts
82
Likes
28
Hmm $100 to add the feature to a watch which costs half the price in the first place, outlay $100, saving over Rolex $3k. Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me!

That aside, read up on the ceramic before jumping in. There are plenty of people including a respected U.K. independent dealer who think that the pip on the GMT ceramic bezel is too fragile and it very expensive to replace: basically you need a new bezel. There have also been tales of cracked bezels. Yes ceramic is much harder than the old aluminium bezel but it also never deforms, it cracks or shatters and is also about 10x the price if it gets damaged.

Pip on a GMT?

My experience with ceramic Rollies is that Sub's look smarter than pre ceramics, mainly due to the new bezel. Also maxi dial and maxi hands look nicer. 116710 GMT 2's are a bit too bling for my liking, the polished bracelet is what makes it OTT. Also it's a shame that they don't come with glidelock clasps. If they had Sub bracelet or ideally modern jubilee they would be a perfect sports Rolex.
 
Posts
276
Likes
288
If there is one Rolex 5 digit reference that will become classic, most likely it's the 16710.


I blame it on the autoconnect.
 
Posts
2,149
Likes
6,642
If there is one Rolex 5 digit reference that will become classic, most likely it's the 16710.


I blame it on the autoconnect.
I agree, just look at the recent price appreciation of the 16710's, as noted, they're more expensive than the ceramic black. I personally, find the ceramics quite distasteful, they're too bulky and are very uncomfortable on the wrist.
 
Posts
82
Likes
28
Recent price appreciation is driven by hype caused by cheap credit and the prospect of negative interest rates. Ceramic GMT launched in 2007 so if it was really that much worse to regular punters old GMT 2 should have kept its value well since it was discontinued. Which hasn't been the case, a couple of years back you could have bought a Pepsi for half of what it's worth now. Question is when will the market overheat and will you end up with a hot potato which will be difficult to pass on.
 
Posts
2,874
Likes
14,719
I agree, just look at the recent price appreciation of the 16710's, as noted, they're more expensive than the ceramic black. I personally, find the ceramics quite distasteful, they're too bulky and are very uncomfortable on the wrist.
I'd vote for the 16710 too. I also have slim wrists (6.3") and my 16710 fit beautifully. The newer case with the brawnier lugs wears big (like a 41mm). It is admittedly more sporty but in a very generic way. I'd still prefer the 16710 for the balance of sportiness, tool-watchiness, and subtle elegance.
 
Posts
713
Likes
2,050
Ceramic Rolexes are too ostentatious for my tastes. The 16710 is one of the best "modern" Rolex sport watches imo.
 
Posts
9,683
Likes
15,256
Pip on a GMT?

My experience with ceramic Rollies is that Sub's look smarter than pre ceramics, mainly due to the new bezel. Also maxi dial and maxi hands look nicer. 116710 GMT 2's are a bit too bling for my liking, the polished bracelet is what makes it OTT. Also it's a shame that they don't come with glidelock clasps. If they had Sub bracelet or ideally modern jubilee they would be a perfect sports Rolex.

Quite right, there is no pip, just a matt triangle, clearly a senior moment. I do stand by the comment that the ceramic material isn't quite as bullet proof as Rolex and Omega would have everyone believe. As you say glidelock is a big plus for the current model though.
 
Posts
2,874
Likes
14,719
Ceramic Rolexes are too ostentatious for my tastes.

Good point. I had forgotten about those blingy PCLs...
 
Posts
349
Likes
1,543
Are you able to source a 16700 in Sydney/Melbourne? Have you considered a 16700 over 16710?
 
Posts
2,057
Likes
14,510
I had the ceramic - didn't love the feel of it - it's built like a tank, and the maxi case didn't suit me. Chopped it in and bought a 1675 with the same $, which turned out quite well.
 
Posts
294
Likes
271
Thanks all for the response, I just tried on the Ceramic GMT in black yesterday again and I do like it very much! I probably do prefer the proportions of the 16710 though, BUT can't get past the price... for the same price I'd probably rather buy a mint JLC master calendar steel, or similar!

Perhaps as a few people have suggested, I'll release my 'SEL' requirement and go an old vintage model GMT...
 
Posts
276
Likes
288
Recent price appreciation is driven by hype caused by cheap credit and the prospect of negative interest rates. Ceramic GMT launched in 2007 so if it was really that much worse to regular punters old GMT 2 should have kept its value well since it was discontinued. Which hasn't been the case, a couple of years back you could have bought a Pepsi for half of what it's worth now. Question is when will the market overheat and will you end up with a hot potato which will be difficult to pass on.

That might be the case, but don't u agree big fat watches are also a fad? So down the road, which one would u hold on? The Pepsi is a classic that will never go out of fashion. Just look at how many copy cats blue and red bezel on the market. If the market adjust, the worst u could do is lose some value, but sooner or later it will rebound. [emoji6]


I blame it on the autoconnect.
 
Posts
294
Likes
271
For a black dialled Rolex with new clasp/oyster bracelet, maybe a 116234 or 116200 could be a happy medium?