Drake Moore planned to own two iconic tool watches. He had a Speedmaster Professional and wanted to add a five-digit GMT-Master II. It was an appealing division of labor: chronograph and travel watch, each with its own history. Then he bought a 1994 Pepsi GMT-Master II ref. 16710, and the Speedmaster largely stopped being worn.

That outcome is more informative than another list of the 16710’s specifications.

Moore’s Chrono24 account describes years of daily use, from runs to dirt-bike excursions. He appreciates the aged tritium and fading aluminum bezel but also acknowledges the small crown, the 3185’s characteristic movement of the 24-hour hand during local-hour adjustment, and the conspicuousness of the Pepsi colors. Those inconveniences did not stop the watch becoming his default choice.

The 16710 occupies a useful transition. Produced from 1989 to 2007, it retains the independently adjustable local-hour function and sapphire crystal while preserving lighter five-digit Rolex proportions. Production changes included luminous materials, lug-hole configurations and a late transition from caliber 3185 to 3186. These distinctions matter to collectors, but none by itself explains why an owner chooses the same watch every morning.

The more persuasive explanation is how little the fake watch demands during use. Its roughly 40mm case is restrained compared with many contemporary sports watches. The rotating 24-hour bezel offers additional time-zone flexibility. The local-hour adjustment is genuinely practical when traveling. Meanwhile, the older bracelet and aluminum insert give it a different tactile and visual character from a current GMT-Master II.

But one person’s durability story is not a pressure test or a population-level reliability study. A thirty-year-old watch may have tired seals, worn bracelet components, an altered bezel insert or a heavily polished case. Original water-resistance specifications cannot certify the condition of an individual example today. Attractive fading should not be mistaken for proof of originality either.

A modern GMT-Master II wins obvious comparisons: more substantial construction, ceramic bezel and longer power reserve. The 16710 offers a different proposition. It is modern enough to travel with and old enough to feel distinctive. Whether that balance is preferable depends on what bothers the wearer after the first month, not what impresses them during the first five minutes.

Moore expected his replica Rolex to share wrist time with his Omega. Instead it changed his collecting habits. The lesson is not that everyone should buy a 16710. It is that a successful daily watch can quietly defeat a more elaborate collection plan.

There is also a distinction between the watch that looks right in a photograph and the one that keeps surviving ordinary decisions. The faded aluminum insert, for example, is central to the appeal of many older Pepsi GMTs. But a collector who constantly worries about scratching an expensive original insert may discover that the feature they most admired makes the watch less enjoyable to wear. The same aging can invite affection in one owner and anxiety in another.

The independently adjustable local-hour hand is a particularly good example of practical design surviving changes in fashion. When crossing time zones, the wearer can change local time without stopping the movement or disturbing the reference time shown by the 24-hour hand. That matters on a trip in a way that an extra millimeter of bracelet solidity might not. Conversely, the relatively modest power reserve of the older caliber can become noticeable when the watch sits unused over a weekend. Neither advantage nor inconvenience should be exaggerated into a universal verdict.

The owner account is strongest when read as a sequence of changed preferences rather than as an endorsement. Moore originally expected two watches to satisfy two distinct interests. Years of actual use altered that theory. The GMT’s combination of comfort, familiarity and utility became more important than maintaining the neat symmetry of a planned collection. This is the sort of evidence that short-term reviews cannot supply: not how impressive the watch is on arrival, but which of its characteristics still matter after the excitement fades.

For a prospective buyer, that suggests a better test than asking whether the 16710 is ‘better’ than the modern Pepsi. Try an example with the correct bracelet length, examine the clasp and case condition, operate the crown and hour-setting system, and ask whether the specific compromises feel charming or merely outdated. Then have the watch’s condition evaluated independently. A compelling owner’s story can help identify the right questions; it cannot substitute for examining the actual replica watch offered for sale.