Rolex vintage GMT Master or vintage submariner

[anonymous-user]

I'd go for the GMT as I prefer the thinner case and pepsi bezel.

[R.P.M]

Had in my hand a late 60's gmt pepsi only this lunch time.
A lovely piece and I also preferred the thinner case.
Shame the dealer wouldn't part with it. He reckoned it was a keeper until the value doubles.

[stiglet]

If price originality and condition are similar, the 5513 may be the better buy at current prices.

However, I like the GMT - esp. with the Pepsi bezel. I have one (16750) but was offered a pristine 1675 at the weekend, which is tempting.

Per the previous post , I think these may appreciate nicely over the next few years

[ds666]

I recently bought a 1965 5513 with papers after about 3 mths looking .Its a bit of a minefield trying to decide if the watches are original ( dial , hands etc ) and even after extensive research there are so many contradicting ( or at best vague ) bits of info that there appears to be few " facts " for vintage watches. I spent ( spend ..) quite a bit of time on the vintage rolex forum which is very interesting with serial numbers/years ( which are vastly different on some forums ) etc as well as quite a few well trusted sellers ( although most are USA based ) .Good to gauge market pricing . Mike Woods of the old watch company in Liverpool (?) appears to be an amazing expert .I bought mine via ebay .
Regarding 5513 v 1675 , I think I'll end up with both at some stage ....hopefully
HTH

[Thunderstruck80]

GMT (pepsi) everytime IMHO, chronomaster has a couple of good examples in stock

[Alex L]

Picked up a 16710 Pepsi today, love it. Was on a coke insert but had it changed

[Riff Raff]

wigsworld said:

I'd go for the GMT as I prefer the thinner case and pepsi bezel.

Innocent question. What do you mean by thinner case?

[Jonny TVR]

I'm also deliberating on various versions. I want used version that will appreciate in value. Who should I buy from?

[R.P.M]

Alex L said:

Picked up a 16710 Pepsi today, love it. Was on a coke insert but had it changed

Very very nice, this would definately be my choice over a sub. Enjoy.

[Miguel Alvarez]

I really want a GMT but am having trouble justifying one as I have an Explorer 2 which I love. The GMT is a bit further down the list once I've bought a few other pieces.

[anonymous-user]

Riff Raff said:

Innocent question. What do you mean by thinner case?

Just mean that the GMT sits flatter on the wrist and doesn't look as chunky as a Submariner.

[Riff Raff]

wigsworld said:

Riff Raff said:

Innocent question. What do you mean by thinner case?

Just mean that the GMT sits flatter on the wrist and doesn't look as chunky as a Submariner.

Well, the reason I asked is that I have a 16710 GMT and a 16610 Sub (and a 16600 Sea-Dweller). To all intents and purposes, and without getting the micrometer out, the cases are all the same. The GMT has a thinner crown - and maybe the lugs around the winder are slightly different, but to me the Sub and the GMT wear pretty much the same. The Sea Dweller is slightly different as it has quite a pronounced dome on the case back.

The only real difference for me - ignoring the crowns - is that the bracelet on the GMT is a bit lighter and more 'rattly'. This I think is due to it having a shorter clasp and no extendible flip lock.

If anyone is interested, I'll take some photos tomorrow to back this up.

[anonymous-user]

Riff Raff said:

Well, the reason I asked is that I have a 16710 GMT and a 16610 Sub (and a 16600 Sea-Dweller). To all intents and purposes, and without getting the micrometer out, the cases are all the same. The GMT has a thinner crown - and maybe the lugs around the winder are slightly different, but to me the Sub and the GMT wear pretty much the same. The Sea Dweller is slightly different as it has quite a pronounced dome on the case back.

The only real difference for me - ignoring the crowns - is that the bracelet on the GMT is a bit lighter and more 'rattly'. This I think is due to it having a shorter clasp and no extendible flip lock.

If anyone is interested, I'll take some photos tomorrow to back this up.

I think the difference on the latter models isn't quite so much but to my eyes at least my dad's 16700 GMT looks thinner and sits flatter on the wrist than my 16610.