A Tale of Two Two-Tone GMTs

By Joe Berk

Some time ago, we wrote a blog comparing the Casio Marlin and Rolex Sea Dweller dive watches.   This one is similar; it compares my nearly 40-year-old two-tone Rolex GMT II to a recently-released Seiko two-tone GMT.

I’m a sucker for a good-looking watch.  Many of my retired friends take pride in not wearing a watch, and many young people don’t wear watches (they’re glued to their cell phones all day; they can get the time there).  I always wear a watch.

The first watch I ever owned was a gift from my parents.  It was an inexpensive Timex that was completely unexpected, I loved it, and I wore it for years.  I first recognized watches as a status symbol and a cool thing to own when I was in the Army, and like all the other lieutenants overseas, I bought a Seiko chronograph at the Base Exchange.  After the Army came the aerospace industry where a Rolex was the status symbol, and when I was back in D.C. lobbying Congress to buy Aerojet cluster bombs instead of Brand X (Honeywell was Brand X for us), a jewelry store had the Rolex GMT Master II you see here.  I wore it full time for years after I first bought it, and then only intermittently after that.  I felt the Rolex was pretentious around clients, and I was afraid it would reinforce a feeling that they were paying me too much (which they were).  Now that I’m retired, the fear of being pretentious has been replaced by the fear of getting mugged, so I don’t wear it very often.

So what is a GMT watch?  Basically, it is a watch that allows you to tell time in three time zones.   If you wanted to, one of the time zones could be Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), which is the time at the Greenwich Observatory in England.  Most of the time, I could care less what the time is in England, but that’s where the GMT descriptor originates.

Today, there are multiple approaches for time telling in different time zones, but the classic approach (and one followed by the Rolex and Seiko watches in this blog) is through the use of a third hand and a bezel with 24-hour numbering.  The way it works is this:

• • • The standard hour and minute hands tell the local time.
    • The third hand can be shifted to tell the time in a different time zone.
    • The bezel can be rotated to tell the time in a third time zone.

There are variations on the above (like switching local time with destination time, etc.).  All of this may sound like a solution looking for a problem, but trust on this, when you travel to different time zones, it’s a very useful feature.

The Rolex GMT allows you to “step” the hour in one-hour increments by use of the winding knob when the knob is partially pulled out (some folks say this makes the Rolex a “true” GMT).  On the Seiko, it doesn’t have the “step” function; use of the winding knob advances either the third hand or the conventional hour hand without the one-hour clicks (depending on which click you bring the stem out to).   To me, either approach is acceptable.

The Rolex GMT Master II retails today for $14,050; the Seiko goes for $475.  There’s a lot more to the pricing story, though.  Prices on a Rolex are all over the map, and Rolexes sell for well above their suggested retail price.  Some, even used, sell for three or four times their suggested retail price.  I don’t know what my Rolex would sell for today as a used watch, and I’m not really interested because it’s not for sale.  The Rolex will eventually go to one of my grandsons.  I paid $3287 for it new in that Washington, D.C. jewelry store in 1986.  I could easily get my money out of it if I wanted to, but like I said, that’s not going to happen.

Staying on pricing for a minute, the two-tone Seiko GMT is a relatively new model, so I couldn’t find it discounted on Amazon.  If the two-tone coloring is not important to you, you can get the all-stainless version on Amazon for $317, which is a smoking deal (it’s $158 less expensive than the two-tone version).

My Seiko GMT was an impulse buy.  Sue and I went out for lunch and there was a small watch shop a couple of doors down.  They had the two-tone model, which I had not seen before other than in online watch forums and Seiko’s website (I was in Tokyo last year, and I didn’t even see it there).  I asked the shop about a veteran’s discount, the guy said “you bet,” and mine set me back $402.  I like supporting local businesses, I like doing business with shops that offer a veteran’s discount, and I liked being able to see the watch in person before I pulled the trigger.

My Rolex runs fast, gaining about a minute a week.  That’s adjustable and would no doubt be corrected if I took the watch in for service, but I’m probably not going to do that.  I’ve had the Rolex serviced twice.  The last time was 25 years ago at the Rolex service center in Beverly Hills (where else could it possibly be?).  Rolex clipped me $1000 for the service.  I wasn’t happy at all.  After the servicing, the numbers on the click-detented bezel were offset from where they should have been, and when I bitched about that, they remounted the bezel.  It was better, but it is still offset a bit.  Within six months of that service (which included replacing the crystal), I noticed a gouge on the crystal.  I had worn the Rolex for 10 years before that and never had a scratch on the original crystal, so I have to wonder if I really received the sapphire crystal I paid for.  A servicing today will probably be about $1500 if I get the crystal replaced and the bezel numbers remounted.  It’s not likely I’ll spring for that.  Maybe I will.  I don’t know.  It’s something I think about now and then, but then I think about getting out on the range with a milsurp rifle or riding my motorcycle and I forget about it.  So far, the Seiko is keeping perfect time.  I’ll let you know if that changes.

The Seiko is a new watch, so I haven’t had it serviced yet.  Poking around a bit revealed that a typical mechanical watch servicing costs from $200 to $250. I think my local guy would probably be less than that.  It’s quite a bit lower than what a Rolex service costs.

Both the Seiko and the Rolex are automatics.  That means they are mechanical, selfwinding timepieces.  The good news is there are no batteries, and it doesn’t matter if I stay out in the sun long enough to charge the solar power source.  The bad news is that if I don’t wear an automatic watch for a few days, it stops.  When that happens, prior to the next time I wear it I need to wind it and set the time.  The Seiko, fully wound, has a 41-hour power reserve.  The Rolex has a 70-hour power reserve.  Rolex gets the nod here.

Regarding cosmetics, the “gold” bezel on the Seiko isn’t really gold; it’s plated.  The accents on the Seiko hands and the watchface are similarly gold colored (i.e., they are not real gold).  The Seiko’s jubilee bracelet links center areas are left a natural stainless steel finish.  On the Rolex, they are gold.  Another thing to note:  On any Rolex, wherever you see something gold, it’s real gold.  Nothing is plated on a Rolex.  The bezel, the watchface accents, the hands, the winder, and the jubilee bracelet are all solid gold.  Both watches look great, in my opinion.  The real gold obviously drives the cost of Rolex higher than a Seiko, but not enough to explain the $14,000 (or more) difference.  Most of the price difference is prestige pricing (Rolex gets away with it because some folks think they need such a thing).  I used to be one of them.  I’m not anymore.

About that jubilee bracelet:  What they refers to are the smaller links in the watchband’s center section.   Non-jubilee watches have bigger, single links instead of the jubilee bracelet’s three smaller links.  To me, the jubilee bracelet makes a real comfort difference.  The non-jubilee bracelet just doesn’t feel as good.

The Seiko is a much thicker case, and it sits higher on the wrist.  It’s enough to be noticeable.  The Rolex is thinner and I like the feel of it better for that reason.

The Seiko’s stem winder is a push in/pull out affair.  The Rolex stem winder unscrews, which theoretically makes it more waterproof.   I don’t wear my watch in the shower any more (ever since I ruined a G-Shock by doing so), so the difference is meaningless to me.

One last area I’ll touch on is the clasp design.  Hands down (pardon the pun) the win here goes to Seiko.  The Seiko’s clasp has three retaining features compared to the Rolex clasp.  The fear, of course, is that the watch clasp comes undone and the watch slips off the wrist.  It could be damaged by a fall onto, say, concrete, or worse, go unnoticed.  The other fear is pickpockets.  I don’t know how difficult it would be for a pickpocket to lift your watch.  I once had a guy (a magician) remove a watch I was wearing without me noticing it.  That watch had a leather band and I later learned there’s a trick to it.  I don’t know if there’s a comparable trick for a metal bracelet, but if there is, I would think the Rolex would be more susceptible to such a thing.

The bottom line to me is that the Seiko is a hell of a deal for under $500, and if you are looking for a watch that offers all the advantages of a GMT and is dressy, the Seiko is a good buy.  I own both, and I think Seiko hit a home run here.

---

There are other approaches to a GMT watch.  Citizen has a different dual time approach with their Nighthawk and Blue Angels models.  Many digital watches (some identified as GMT watches and some not) can display the time in different time zones at the touch of a button.  Casio has several cool models that do this.  The Citizen and the Casio watches are reviewed on our Product Reviews page.

---

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

---

---

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

---