1997 Rolex GMT £12000

[RJM25R]

Seems excessive?



However, I wondered why is this a GMT Master, and not a GMT Master II ?

[paneristi372]

I feel in the future the GMT Master (16700) will become more sought after than the GMT Master II (16710) due to less being made.

Still seems expensive. £7500 to £8500 seems more what I see as the value.

[Maysie]

It is 'outstanding value'.

It must be, as it says so on the ticket.

[RJM25R]

I feel in the future the GMT Master (16700) will become more sought after than the GMT Master II (16710) due to less being made.

Still seems expensive. £7500 to £8500 seems more what I see as the value.

Just googled that, I didn’t realise the gmtmaster (1) was still being made in 1997! I thought they were all non- gold surround dials and a lot older


Every day a school day!

[learningtofly]

The 16710 from this period is a much better buy as it had the independent hour hand. Ridiculous price.

[JasonM]

I feel in the future the GMT Master (16700) will become more sought after than the GMT Master II (16710) due to less being made.

Still seems expensive. £7500 to £8500 seems more what I see as the value.

About 10 years ago there was one in the window of a shop in Birminghams jewellery quarter for months and months for £1800, I nearly bought it several times but talked myself out of it every time. Naturally, when I made up my mind to buy it it had gone.

[paneristi372]

The 16710 from this period is a much better buy as it had the independent hour hand. Ridiculous price.

The 24 hour hand setting is very laborious on the 16700 and quite rightly the 16710 jumping hour hand is a great improvement but as with everything Rolex the one with lower quantities one day will hold the premium.

[ben4watches]

Cheaper than this one, which is still in the window. No surprise there.

https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?441645-How-much

[boring_sandwich]

I sold my 16700 to WF around 2011 for £2300, no one else wanted to buy it at the time!

[oliverte]

You can't set the 16700 24 hour hand separately.

It is linked to the hour hand but runs at half speed

The 24 hour hand setting is very laborious on the 16700 and quite rightly the 16710 jumping hour hand is a great improvement but as with everything Rolex the one with lower quantities one day will hold the premium.

Sent from my SM-G960F using TZ-UK mobile app

[Halitosis]

I bought a 16700 new in the year 2000 and it must have been one of the last produced.
Although it lacked the jump hour hand, it instead had a quick set date, so an owner who rarely travels between time zones may even find it more useful... still, it missed out on solid end links. Cost me £2,100 and I wore it daily for 17 years.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Elesmy]

Later SEL 16710 a better buy than this. 16700 stopped in 1999 btw

[gbn13]

You can't set the 16700 24 hour hand separately.

It is linked to the hour hand but runs at half speed

Sent from my SM-G960F using TZ-UK mobile app

And the reason I bought a 16700, rather than a 16710. I had no need of an independent hour hand. Well that and the pricing was about £500 less than an equivalent age, similar condition 16710 at the time (2015).

[744ER]

The 24 hour hand setting is very laborious on the 16700 and quite rightly the 16710 jumping hour hand is a great improvement but as with everything Rolex the one with lower quantities one day will hold the premium.

Definitely not a certainty.

[Skyman]

And not evening an original complete set.

[speedypro1111]

And not evening an original complete set.

Yep...wrong box for starters

[Omegamanic]

Definitely not a certainty.

It's an absolute certainty with respect a GMT Master Vs a GMT Master II (pre ceramic any way)

[Dark Side of The Loon]

Definitely not a certainty.

I think quite a few people, especially those with collections, would find a quickset date more attractive than the jumping-hour. Three time zones are surely not helpful (to most) all that often, and you can change a timezone even more quickly than the jumping-hour by just moving the bezel.

It is also one of those lesser-known references (like the 16800/1680000 Submariners), which to my mind make it a little more interesting.

They will have been made in smaller numbers than the 16710 I presume, but I don’t think the price difference between them will ever be particularly vast, one way or another.

Unlike the 16710, there were no two-tone or gold versions of the 16700. Likewise, I believe it was not available with the Coke bezel from new (just the choice of Pepsi and black). The 16710 had the choice of all three bezel variants. The bezels are, however, entirely interchangeable between the 16700s and 16710s, so if one wanted a Coke bezel and quickset date, it wouldn’t be hard to achieve.

[Hood]

The 16710 from this period is a much better buy as it had the independent hour hand. Ridiculous price.

I would take the quickset date feature of the 16700 over the indy hour hand of 16710.

[Skyman]

I would take the quickset date feature of the 16700 over the indy hour hand of 16710.

Indeed.

[744ER]

It's an absolute certainty with respect a GMT Master Vs a GMT Master II (pre ceramic any way)

Hardly if we're talking sapphire. Quick look at chrono24 seems to confirm. Depends on condition, dial variations a bit though...

Just because a reference is "rare" doesn't necessarily mean it will be more valuable. Trends and market psychology is a big factor. The 16700 was a "budget" version of the 16710.

Id never choose the GMT over the GMT2, noone uses the bezel for the timezone its too unintuitive, the independent hour hand is far superior, which is why it survived and is now used on Tudor too...

[oliverte]

Yep, I have one too and I love the quickset date. Preferred it over my explorer 2

And the reason I bought a 16700, rather than a 16710. I had no need of an independent hour hand. Well that and the pricing was about £500 less than an equivalent age, similar condition 16710 at the time (2015).

Sent from my SM-G960F using TZ-UK mobile app

[even neve]

Quickset date on the 16700 !