I'm really keen to add a pepsi GMT Master to my collection, looking at the older models I think my preference might be for a 16750. This is the model that ran from 1981-1988 and has tritium lume with a mostly matte dial (although the glossy dial appeared in roughly 1986). Frustratingly my birthyear is 1986 which should mean a glossy dial so I might look a bit earlier for a later matte dial.
When I look at listings it's very common to find a mismatch of lume colour between the dial and hands, where the dial has nicely aged and the hands seem much newer. I'm guessing a quick UV light test will show a stark difference and confirm suspicions that it could well be a set of service hands?
Here is an example:
Now here is an example where both the dial and hands have, seemingly, aged well together:
My question is, should the hands and dial lume age at the same rate? Or does the backing material that the lume is applied to play a role in the rate of discolouration?
On a complete aside, I really enjoy the faded bezel insert look. Are there particular models or years that it is known to happen to? The reason for the question is if a watch might be artificially aged to induce this effect when that model/year were not susceptible.
Hands and indices often age at a different rate because they're not both lumed at the same time from the same pot of tritium so its not uncommon to find darker plots and slightly lighter hands.
I dont think id apply that to the top image though, hands look too persil white so possibly service luminova.
Great watches lovely transitional having quickset but keeping plexi
I recently picked up this sweet 1986 /87 'glossy' hands and dial match very nicely...
Last edited by TKH; 18th June 2021 at 17:59.
I have a 16750 that I bought new in 1986 - in that time it's never had new hands, however by the late '90s the lume on the hour markers had darkened noticeably, but the hands were still pristine white. To this day they still aren't quite the same colour, if I recall correctly. I'll have a close look later.
Pic taken just now. The hands are still a bit brighter than the hour markers.
Verv - Thank you, that's very helpful. It makes sense!
TKH - Wow, that looks great! Nice sharp case and vivid bezel colours
Monogroover - Thank you for digging it out to check. Very lucky chap to have had one that long. Interesting (and reassuring to know) that your lume plots and hands aged differently.
16750 is also my favourite model however it’s a bit of a minefield trying to pick one up, i’d expect some sort of service parts whether that be the dial, hands bezel or bracelet on a 30 plus year watch. the few i’ve seen with my own eyes had a mismatch of the hands and dial plots TBH
Yes lots of GMT’s seem to suffer from mis-matched hands/dial lume.
I could live with the bottom pic one no worries at all but the top one would be a deal breaker for me anyways as it'd bug me every time I looked at it...
Last edited by gmt 16750; 18th June 2021 at 17:14.
I am another fan of the 16750, I went for the matte dial as I personally prefer the look. You mention that the matte dial was made for longer but there appear to be fewer for sale, I think many have been serviced and their dials replaced with glossy ones.
Here’s mine
[IMG][/IMG]
Also one of my favourite models, the 16750 though seems to be a model that I’ve seen that do have a lot of service parts. And would be a dealbreaker for me too. I have the 1987 gloss one but luckily/ unluckily never serviced or polished, I’d love a matte dial one one day though !
Good luck with the search !
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
16750 is a great choice and I would suggest you just take your time and find one you like the look of. I’ve seen a number of all original watches fade very differently across hands, dial, bezel etc so it just boils down to your aesthetic preference. I always wanted a matt dial version with well matched dial and hands and bought this several years back. Don’t wear it much now but still makes me smile every time I do!
Not a lot to add to the information provided by others, just to repeat that some colour difference between dial and hands is quite normal, but you’re right to be suspicious when either or both are clinically white.
I have one where in some lights the hands appear more yellowed than the plots, and another where the match is good, although the ageing is slight - just to a pale cream.
I’m not aware that some bezels are more susceptible to fading than others. I’d always assumed that it depends wholly on what the watch has been exposed to during its lifetime. I’m sure you’ve seen there’s a multitude of aged colour effects, from pale pink to bright fuchsia. They now change hands for serious money.
Look out for the artificially aged ones. One common technique is household bleach. I believe that this also attacks the gloss finish of the bezel inserts (leaving them matte) whereas naturally aged ones retain their gloss finish.
The third watch below has had replacement hands. The lume fell out of the originals during a service and these replacements were fitted - they are NOS tritium specifically chosen for the colour match.
Again not a lot of information added here… but if you can definitely go for a matte dial one. Looks like a 1675 but with quick set date.
I absolutely love mine
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Originally Posted by learningtofly
To my mind the 16750 is the way to go for the reasons stated. I've had amazing examples of both references, though, and I could give myself a hard slap for letting them go.
I agree Tony ( including the full set Radial dial that I sold ) but the 16750 is a super watch and one that’s at the back of the queue for me to ever part with .
These replies have been incredibly helpful, thank you!
It's made my mind up that the matte dial is absolutely the way to go. The hunt begins!
Revisiting this thread because I took a photo of this for the Friday thread 40 minutes ago and noticed that the contrast between the hands and markers has increased slightly over the last couple of years, unless I'm imagining it. For interest I tweaked the brightness / contrast on the second pic just to exaggerate the difference. The watch doesn't actually look like this to the naked eye obviously but it does show that they're different, although the hands are original.Pic taken just now. The hands are still a bit brighter than the hour markers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
