- 12/3/18
- 34,540
- 66,382
- 113
BP Factory Rolex 16710 GMT Full Review VS Gen
Greetings fellow watchaholics, as the title states, here is a full review of the BP Rolex 16710 GMT. There are a lot of things to like about this rep, and as you will see overall I gave it a high rating. There are some things which will need fixing, as is the case with most reps. All of the characteristics of this rep like SEL, no LEC, dial, no lug holes, thickness, clasp, etc., were found on various 5-digit GMT models, but not all at the same time. There are some period correctness issues but overall I think it’s an acceptable combination with a few exceptions. This model is only available as ICHS.
Below is the link I sent to my TD to source the watch. TSWatch is not a TD, but there are more good quality pics to look at there.
https://www.ts-station.cn/goods.php?ProId=13255
This is a link to the A3186 deco plate model at Intime. It is only shown with Pepsi insert. The many other listings at Intime for 16710's are all mislabeled, they are 1675's.
https://www.intime04.co/rollie/3627-...let-a3186.html
I will be rating the various elements of this rep using the following scale:
10.0 Perfect
9.0 Excellent
8.0 Very Good
7.0 Good
6.0 Above Average
5.0 Average
4.0 Below Average
3.0 Poor
2.0 Very Poor
1.0 Unacceptable
Case 8.0 / 10.0
Overall the case shape is very good. At a glance, it looks very gen-like.
In the next few pics, we start to notice some deviations. The lugs appear to be a little thinner on the BP. Part of the reason for this appearance is due to the wider chamfers on the BP case shoulders. Four digit GMTs had these wider chamfers, as did the first GMT Master II, the 16760. The 16760 was known as the ‘Fat Lady’ and the ‘Sophia Loren’ because of these extra curves, and because the watch was thicker than others, around 13mm. These were two separate nicknames and never meant to imply Sophia Loren was fat, lol. You may have noticed that the BP 16710 rep looks thicker than the gen, and it is. More on that later, but one could easily conclude that BP modeled this 16710 after the 16760 Fat Lady as no other gen GMT five digit models are thick or have wide chamfers. The 16760 was in production from 1983-1988.
Here’s a shot of a ‘Fat Lady’
View of the lugs
Side views, note the thicker BP case. BP case has no lug holes, this came about in 2003.
You can also see the difference in the crown guards and the position of the crown. The 2836 really sits low.
Side edge view, you can really see the chamfer, and the difference in the crown position.
Here you can see the BP case is .3mm thicker, but this is only part of the story.
Caseback 4.0 / 10.0
The caseback on this rep is inexplicably thick, here you can see just how much. There is a version of this rep that has an A3186 deco plate, maybe that’s what it’s for. It’s a very good quality, thick caseback but you can see what it does to the overall thickness measurement. Maybe BP was trying to match the Fat Lady 13mm thickness along with the wider chamfers. Who knows?
So the caseback of this watch creates a real thickness issue. I read about one member who grinded the caseback down and was able to achieve a 12.5mm result. This is great however there would be no room then to have a brushed caseback inner circle as you would be down to the tops of the teeth. I was lucky to have a thinner caseback in my parts drawer and it gave me a 12.5mm result, which I’m happy with as the .3mm difference to gen is in the case, not the caseback. This is the best you can hope for I think, and it is one thing that you must do somehow for this rep to be acceptable. Here’s some wristshots.
After the thinner caseback was installed.
Here’s a shot of the original caseback next to the installed replacement.
Crown Guards 7.0 / 10.0
BP CG’s are close to the right shape, they just aren’t wide enough. They are a little taller and angle down slightly to cover the lower sitting crown. Nothing can really be done to improve this much.
Crown 8.0 / 10.0
BP Crown is nice, the logo is not raised as much as the gen and the logo oval is larger but overall it looks decent.
Bezel 8.0 / 10.0
BP bezel has wider and slightly deeper scallops, and correspondingly narrower teeth. The bezel is tight and it rotates very nicely with good clicks, in fact it’s better than my gen which could use a new click spring.
Insert 7.5 / 10.0
BP insert is good to very good, the red color on the BP is slightly more toward fire engine red while the gen is more cherry red. One of the things I’ve always liked about the gen Coke insert is that the red is deeper than on the Pepsi. The BP insert numbers are a little bolder and have exaggerated serifs. You can see my gen has barely discernible serifs, some gens are more pronounced like the BP. The BP insert numbers are slightly too tall. The 2’s are not as badly misshapen as many aftermarket inserts. At wrist length, it’s hard to notice any difference.
Dial 6.0 / 10.0
BP dial is not very good. In the first pic next to my gen, you can see some differences. The crown is shaped differently, the outer spires are not tall enough. The text is bolder, taller and more condensed on the rep, and there’s less space in the bottom section between the first line and next two lines. BP’s dial is what is called a “sticks” dial, meaning the Roman numeral II after GMT Master does not have any horizontal lines at the tops and bottoms of them. Sticks dials are rare and command premium pricing today. They only appeared on D, Z, and M serials, between 2005 -2007. Models made in those years would not have had a thick case or wide chamfered shoulders like this rep (period correctness issue). In the second picture I show a 2006 gen dial where you can compare the rep with the more common non-sticks dial. Also note the 2006 gen bezel markers, which are thicker with exaggerated serifs and look a lot like the BP. The rep dial markers are typical and have decent green lume.
Hands 9.5 / 10.0
BP hands are usually great, these are no exception. Half a point off for the GMT hand triangle being slightly different shape (not equilateral), otherwise the hands are excellent.
Rehaut 10.0 / 10.0
The five digit GMT Master II never had an engraved rehaut, so it’s really nice to get a rep that way again. Many of these rep models don’t come with clean rehauts anymore and it’s great not to have to sand them down. This rehaut is slightly taller than gen due to the .3mm thicker case, but it’s not a bit wokky and has a beautifully milled and polished finish that is a real pleasure to look at.
Datewheel 7.0 / 10.0
BP usually does a better job on their datewheels. Numerals are too thin, this should really be replaced.
Crystal 7.5 / 10.0
The crystal is OK but nothing special. It has no LEC, which is fine by me but it’s another period correctness issue. SELs came in 2000, LEC and no lug holes came in 2003, so it should have LEC. The crystal sits lower than my gen and has a nice chamfered edge. The cyclops is average, at least it’s straight. I’ve read that these models won’t take a gen crystal, but there’s always a way to achieve a better solution. You can send crystals to Prof for custom coating, or just get an AR cyclops. I’ll have to see what I can do.
Bracelet 6.5 / 10.0
Other than the full gold wrapped, BP bracelets generally are not great. Dead last in a comparison to ARF, Noob, VRF, etc. This one is not good. It’s not cheap and rattly like a DHGate bracelet but it’s just not in the same league as those others. I had to add a link of my own to fit my 7.25” wrist, BP never supplies enough links. The link screws were glued in and quite difficult to remove. I chewed one up and almost two others. I sanded and polished the two to look acceptably newish and replaced the other one. We shouldn’t have to do this on a new watch. Both SELs have micro imperfections, not really visible except in closeups. But it just goes to show the generally poorer quality, I never see this on the others. The biggest annoyance is the gap between the SEL and the first link on both sides is greater than the rest of the link gaps. And the gaps are not even. It’s not a dealbreaker, I might change the bracelet to a jubilee or something but you can bet it won’t be a BP. Once you see the SEL-to-link gap it’s hard not to look for it all the time. I’ve shown a Noob bracelet below for comparison. While the bracelet was off I tried to fit an ARF and a Noob bracelet to the BP and neither one fit. SELs extended past the lugs with the Noob and the fit to case was unacceptable with the ARF. There were no markings at all on the bracelet.
SEL fit 9.5 / 10.0
SEL fitment is excellent on all four lugs.
Clasp stampings 8.0 / 10.0
Clasp is correct for this model and the stampings are nicely done. The crown stamp is a little weak, but the inside stampings are very nice. The Clasp code DE6 denotes production month of June 2001. The model stamp of 93250 is incorrect as that is for a later model five digit Submariner clasp. The shorter clasp should have a model stamp of 78790A (with SEL). Don’t ask me why my clasp is a 93150, it even has an extension link. My bracelet is a 93150 also. I’ve seen other GMTs with the Sub bracelet and clasp. It came this way and it was a good thing to have as I only got 10 links with the watch new so the extra length clasp was a help until I started using a rep glidelock on my gen. Heaven!
Clasp edge finishing 4.0 / 10.0
The first time I wore this watch I had to remove it after 20 minutes because it was biting into my wrist. I’m talking breaking the skin sharp. After about 45 minutes of sanding, rounding, and polishing every edge it’s comfortable now. Typical BP, not the first time I’ve had to do this.
Some various extra pics, you should be able to tell the difference by now!
Overall rating 8.0 / 10.0
If this seems a little high to you given the number and extent of deviances from gen, I can only say that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is a very good rep for $278. At that price there’s room to do a few of the things it needs and have a great classic watch. I bought this for a special project, it is going to look totally different when I’m done, I will post back when it’s complete.
Thanks for reading!
.
Greetings fellow watchaholics, as the title states, here is a full review of the BP Rolex 16710 GMT. There are a lot of things to like about this rep, and as you will see overall I gave it a high rating. There are some things which will need fixing, as is the case with most reps. All of the characteristics of this rep like SEL, no LEC, dial, no lug holes, thickness, clasp, etc., were found on various 5-digit GMT models, but not all at the same time. There are some period correctness issues but overall I think it’s an acceptable combination with a few exceptions. This model is only available as ICHS.
Below is the link I sent to my TD to source the watch. TSWatch is not a TD, but there are more good quality pics to look at there.
https://www.ts-station.cn/goods.php?ProId=13255
This is a link to the A3186 deco plate model at Intime. It is only shown with Pepsi insert. The many other listings at Intime for 16710's are all mislabeled, they are 1675's.
https://www.intime04.co/rollie/3627-...let-a3186.html
I will be rating the various elements of this rep using the following scale:
10.0 Perfect
9.0 Excellent
8.0 Very Good
7.0 Good
6.0 Above Average
5.0 Average
4.0 Below Average
3.0 Poor
2.0 Very Poor
1.0 Unacceptable
Case 8.0 / 10.0
Overall the case shape is very good. At a glance, it looks very gen-like.
In the next few pics, we start to notice some deviations. The lugs appear to be a little thinner on the BP. Part of the reason for this appearance is due to the wider chamfers on the BP case shoulders. Four digit GMTs had these wider chamfers, as did the first GMT Master II, the 16760. The 16760 was known as the ‘Fat Lady’ and the ‘Sophia Loren’ because of these extra curves, and because the watch was thicker than others, around 13mm. These were two separate nicknames and never meant to imply Sophia Loren was fat, lol. You may have noticed that the BP 16710 rep looks thicker than the gen, and it is. More on that later, but one could easily conclude that BP modeled this 16710 after the 16760 Fat Lady as no other gen GMT five digit models are thick or have wide chamfers. The 16760 was in production from 1983-1988.
Here’s a shot of a ‘Fat Lady’
View of the lugs
Side views, note the thicker BP case. BP case has no lug holes, this came about in 2003.
You can also see the difference in the crown guards and the position of the crown. The 2836 really sits low.
Side edge view, you can really see the chamfer, and the difference in the crown position.
Here you can see the BP case is .3mm thicker, but this is only part of the story.
Caseback 4.0 / 10.0
The caseback on this rep is inexplicably thick, here you can see just how much. There is a version of this rep that has an A3186 deco plate, maybe that’s what it’s for. It’s a very good quality, thick caseback but you can see what it does to the overall thickness measurement. Maybe BP was trying to match the Fat Lady 13mm thickness along with the wider chamfers. Who knows?
So the caseback of this watch creates a real thickness issue. I read about one member who grinded the caseback down and was able to achieve a 12.5mm result. This is great however there would be no room then to have a brushed caseback inner circle as you would be down to the tops of the teeth. I was lucky to have a thinner caseback in my parts drawer and it gave me a 12.5mm result, which I’m happy with as the .3mm difference to gen is in the case, not the caseback. This is the best you can hope for I think, and it is one thing that you must do somehow for this rep to be acceptable. Here’s some wristshots.
After the thinner caseback was installed.
Here’s a shot of the original caseback next to the installed replacement.
Crown Guards 7.0 / 10.0
BP CG’s are close to the right shape, they just aren’t wide enough. They are a little taller and angle down slightly to cover the lower sitting crown. Nothing can really be done to improve this much.
Crown 8.0 / 10.0
BP Crown is nice, the logo is not raised as much as the gen and the logo oval is larger but overall it looks decent.
Bezel 8.0 / 10.0
BP bezel has wider and slightly deeper scallops, and correspondingly narrower teeth. The bezel is tight and it rotates very nicely with good clicks, in fact it’s better than my gen which could use a new click spring.
Insert 7.5 / 10.0
BP insert is good to very good, the red color on the BP is slightly more toward fire engine red while the gen is more cherry red. One of the things I’ve always liked about the gen Coke insert is that the red is deeper than on the Pepsi. The BP insert numbers are a little bolder and have exaggerated serifs. You can see my gen has barely discernible serifs, some gens are more pronounced like the BP. The BP insert numbers are slightly too tall. The 2’s are not as badly misshapen as many aftermarket inserts. At wrist length, it’s hard to notice any difference.
Dial 6.0 / 10.0
BP dial is not very good. In the first pic next to my gen, you can see some differences. The crown is shaped differently, the outer spires are not tall enough. The text is bolder, taller and more condensed on the rep, and there’s less space in the bottom section between the first line and next two lines. BP’s dial is what is called a “sticks” dial, meaning the Roman numeral II after GMT Master does not have any horizontal lines at the tops and bottoms of them. Sticks dials are rare and command premium pricing today. They only appeared on D, Z, and M serials, between 2005 -2007. Models made in those years would not have had a thick case or wide chamfered shoulders like this rep (period correctness issue). In the second picture I show a 2006 gen dial where you can compare the rep with the more common non-sticks dial. Also note the 2006 gen bezel markers, which are thicker with exaggerated serifs and look a lot like the BP. The rep dial markers are typical and have decent green lume.
Hands 9.5 / 10.0
BP hands are usually great, these are no exception. Half a point off for the GMT hand triangle being slightly different shape (not equilateral), otherwise the hands are excellent.
Rehaut 10.0 / 10.0
The five digit GMT Master II never had an engraved rehaut, so it’s really nice to get a rep that way again. Many of these rep models don’t come with clean rehauts anymore and it’s great not to have to sand them down. This rehaut is slightly taller than gen due to the .3mm thicker case, but it’s not a bit wokky and has a beautifully milled and polished finish that is a real pleasure to look at.
Datewheel 7.0 / 10.0
BP usually does a better job on their datewheels. Numerals are too thin, this should really be replaced.
Crystal 7.5 / 10.0
The crystal is OK but nothing special. It has no LEC, which is fine by me but it’s another period correctness issue. SELs came in 2000, LEC and no lug holes came in 2003, so it should have LEC. The crystal sits lower than my gen and has a nice chamfered edge. The cyclops is average, at least it’s straight. I’ve read that these models won’t take a gen crystal, but there’s always a way to achieve a better solution. You can send crystals to Prof for custom coating, or just get an AR cyclops. I’ll have to see what I can do.
Bracelet 6.5 / 10.0
Other than the full gold wrapped, BP bracelets generally are not great. Dead last in a comparison to ARF, Noob, VRF, etc. This one is not good. It’s not cheap and rattly like a DHGate bracelet but it’s just not in the same league as those others. I had to add a link of my own to fit my 7.25” wrist, BP never supplies enough links. The link screws were glued in and quite difficult to remove. I chewed one up and almost two others. I sanded and polished the two to look acceptably newish and replaced the other one. We shouldn’t have to do this on a new watch. Both SELs have micro imperfections, not really visible except in closeups. But it just goes to show the generally poorer quality, I never see this on the others. The biggest annoyance is the gap between the SEL and the first link on both sides is greater than the rest of the link gaps. And the gaps are not even. It’s not a dealbreaker, I might change the bracelet to a jubilee or something but you can bet it won’t be a BP. Once you see the SEL-to-link gap it’s hard not to look for it all the time. I’ve shown a Noob bracelet below for comparison. While the bracelet was off I tried to fit an ARF and a Noob bracelet to the BP and neither one fit. SELs extended past the lugs with the Noob and the fit to case was unacceptable with the ARF. There were no markings at all on the bracelet.
SEL fit 9.5 / 10.0
SEL fitment is excellent on all four lugs.
Clasp stampings 8.0 / 10.0
Clasp is correct for this model and the stampings are nicely done. The crown stamp is a little weak, but the inside stampings are very nice. The Clasp code DE6 denotes production month of June 2001. The model stamp of 93250 is incorrect as that is for a later model five digit Submariner clasp. The shorter clasp should have a model stamp of 78790A (with SEL). Don’t ask me why my clasp is a 93150, it even has an extension link. My bracelet is a 93150 also. I’ve seen other GMTs with the Sub bracelet and clasp. It came this way and it was a good thing to have as I only got 10 links with the watch new so the extra length clasp was a help until I started using a rep glidelock on my gen. Heaven!
Clasp edge finishing 4.0 / 10.0
The first time I wore this watch I had to remove it after 20 minutes because it was biting into my wrist. I’m talking breaking the skin sharp. After about 45 minutes of sanding, rounding, and polishing every edge it’s comfortable now. Typical BP, not the first time I’ve had to do this.
Some various extra pics, you should be able to tell the difference by now!
Overall rating 8.0 / 10.0
If this seems a little high to you given the number and extent of deviances from gen, I can only say that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is a very good rep for $278. At that price there’s room to do a few of the things it needs and have a great classic watch. I bought this for a special project, it is going to look totally different when I’m done, I will post back when it’s complete.
Thanks for reading!
.
Last edited:
