I’ve just realised that the last three watches I’ve bought, and intend to keep, are vintage versions of models you can still buy new today. Two cost about the same as a brand new watch and the other considerably less. I much prefer the vintage pieces over their modern counterparts, but wondered whether others feel the same way. Would you go for these, or something pristine and modern?
Vintage all the way, without doubt. I wear vintage watches almost every day, the only exception being a 42mm Explorer 2, which is my default beater. Not that I beat it in any way, just that I wear it when going out for the evening,expect to get wet or am staying away from home, that kind of thing.
That Speedy is very nice indeed.
"A man of little significance"
Vintage ! No doubt at all. I wear my Sub and GMT regularly. aalthough they might not be considered to be vintage to some. Vintage memovox and some Heuer chronos (though they might not have modern counterparts) is also on the circulation list.
But I also use vintage that do not have counterparts, like some chronographs from 40-50s and 70 s.
My vintage GMT would say 'hi' but I sold it to you.Originally Posted by learningtofly
Vintage for me, although not exclusively so. You need to add a nice old GMT to your set and then they can all say hi to each other
"A man of little significance"
Vintage all the way, very rarely wear the modern counterparts.
I think my cyclops phobia might prevent that! Maybe I could have hypnotherapy.Vintage for me, although not exclusively so. You need to add a nice old GMT to your set and then they can all say hi to each other
Ah but there are other GMTs out there, here's the one the wicked Tony prised from my very wrist
"A man of little significance"
I prefer vintage cheapies- seikos etc, they just seem better built but, if the watch is a bit more costly, I generally go modern
I've just got my very first truly vintage watch, an Omega Speedmaster from 1969. Absolutely delighted with it:
I've had a range of modern watches too, but I'm learning that there's something special about the vintage watch that I didn't appreciate earlier in life.
For me got to be 2nd hand old that's if you class 2-3 year old watches as old ?
My sweet spot is for vintage diver reissues - PRS 82, Longines Legend Diver, Eterna Super Kontiki, JLC Polaris, etc, etc, etc
I love the design and "feel" of the originals - just tidier. I am not averse to wear and knocks but prefer the history to be applied by me
Gray
I seem to have gone on the basis of new for divers so I know its waterproof, old for dress/everyday office wear as I like the elegance of a small, neat watch.
Vintage means different things to different people; but no-one thinks it's 2-3 years :)
Usully has plexiglass or before 1980. Or in some definitions, needs to be of a special quality or a pspecial year, like a vintage wine.
Definitely Modern for me. Don't like vintage anything. Don't even like old buildings.
Nothing wrong with vintage Cognac though, but I don't look at it for long before I drink it.
3 true icons there, OP, but they were new once.
I own two of the OP's three (although my Speedmaster's more modern, it's still the iconic hand winder Pro) and love them, but there are newer watches which are great too.
My personal 'modern' favourite is the Sinn Arktis 203, but I'm sure there are plenty of others that people would choose.
Today's modern is either tomorrow's forgotten watch or a future classic, but I just buy and wear what I like, ancient or modern.
M
Last edited by snowman; 14th January 2014 at 11:46.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
Wow, That Speedy is amazing! The other two look pretty special also!
For me I would always choose vintage but there is a fine line between vintage that you can wear every day and vintage that really belongs in a safe and only gets worn on special occasions. I would want to wear mine every day and add to the character that the watch already has.
I have a 2009 14060m and love it but I purchased an older watch (Speedy) as soon as funds allowed.
If I could choose another watch today it would be a vintage Rolex or Heuer.
A bit of both for me. Always owned large current model divers until my recent purchase of a gorgeous 1967 5513 now nothing else is getting a look in. Busy locating correct year bracelet and insert and having loads of fun with different Natos.Plus it's ust so much more 'interesting'.
Regards,Craig
I prefer vintage, as long as any patina is purely age-related (such as faded lume and wearing of caseback logo) rather than as a result of knackering and bashing by previous owners. The odd hairline scratch is acceptable, but no knicks or gouges. Unless it's a military watch, in which case a lot more goes.
I don't think I've ever owned a modern dress watch, although there are plenty I've seen that look sort of interesting, and not terribly expensive (Seiko SARB comes to mind). But if I'm getting dressed up, I usually wear French cuffs with vintage links and a vintage dress watch just seems to suit the job much better. For the last few years, I've always bought vintage Seamasters.
As for casual, I have several newer dive watches, but I'm not averse to a vintage watch, even one with some "character". I like to think these watches picked up their marks and blemishes while being put to the use they were designed for, but I suppose some former owner could have worn them while changing sparkplugs too. My current favorite vintage is this Doxa from the late 60s/early 70s.
I would prefer vintage but they are so much more $$
In the UK at least a new Sub date is about £5,000 or £5,500, which would buy you a very nice 1970s 5513 or 1680. A Sub date from the 1990s would cost you a couple of grand less. A new Speedy is something like £2,800, which would buy you a nice 321 Speedy, while a good 861 pre-moon is still in the £1,800 to £2,000 range. A Seiko UFO from the 1970s just sold on this forum for £180 or so, which is firmly in the price range for a new Seiko. Sure, some vintage watches cost a lot more than current models but on the whole you can get a lot more vintage for less than the price of a modern watch, plus you don't get the depreciation.
"A man of little significance"
The three in your post are just superb - I'd be very happy indeed with those as a collection.
Depends on what you are buying. You can pick up vintage Universal Geneves and various other brands that would have been on a par with Rolex and Omega back in the day for reasonable money, with in-house movements and all.
I appreciate both. But I'm on a vintage trip at the moment....
When you can have this, why would you want modern?
Modern! 14060m over a 5513 for me any day.
Lumivoa over tritium
Sapphire over Plexi
WG surrounds at the hour markers
I do like lug holes though.
Last edited by Elwood; 14th January 2014 at 13:29.
Overall i'd say modern, but it's not an exact science. Eg I'd take a SUBc over a vintage sub at around the same price, but also think a Navitimer 806> modern versions.
As someone has said, all watches were new once. In 20-30 years I'm certain I'll be in favour of vintage :)
Vintage for me, I just feel there's more character with them. My current daily wearer is a '64 Speedy, looks great, keeps very good time, and easy to polish out the inevitable scratches from the crystal.
Vintage for me - my old GMT is the daily choice, but looking at this thread I do hanker after a nice 5513
Next Christmas perhaps Mr Claus?
I am moving towards vintage, but I think it's key to bear in mind condition, servicing and fragility. They have a lot more charm than their modern equivalents. However, there are also a lot of designs that have dated very badly. So I suppose it's a mixture of the two.
Well, all those vintage watches were new once. I don't see that merely acquiring someone else's history and wear'n'tear is somehow superior to creating your own, but the Rolex looks a little bit more elegant than a new equivalent, and the modern Navitimer is a wee bit flash/too big, so I'd seriously consider a good old one over a new one in both cases.
But I really don't like all that dark brown lume - it just looks wrong, and makes me suspicious of water damage. I've had a few watches that were that old, or thereabouts, and none were as off-colour as that.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Modern for me. I'm not a fan of the faded Lume and patina on vintage watches.
I've owned a couple of vintage watches, and didn't get much enjoyment out of it to be honest. Didn't like the (perceived) fragility.
I love vintage aesthetics, especially chronos and dive watches, but I'd prefer a modern re-edition, with modern timekeeping, reliability, and if possible, up rated specs.
Hence I'd buy a prs68, but not a 6105.
In fact seiko would get a lot of my money if they occasionally produced re-editions of some of their iconic divers and chronos. A pogue and a 6105 would be in my watch box right now, among others.
Other companies do this regularly. I suppose seiko are interested in the broader market, not enthusiasts.
Vintage for me too, currently in the form of my 1665, although ironically I am today contemplating the purchase of either a 116613LB or a 116660 just to add a modern perspective.
Bit of both for me although the last watch I would sell is my 1966 5513!
I was at a party over Christmas where the host had a new sub, no comparison IMO. - too blingy!
I also prefer my older doxas to their modern copies, I have learned to love their scars.
I have a hankering for a 'lived in ' panerai!
Having said this nice and new and shiny is also good!!!
Mark
Bloody hell Simon, that's a beauty. I could stare at that dome all day.Vintage for me too, currently in the form of my 1665, although ironically I am today contemplating the purchase of either a 116613LB or a 116660 just to add a modern perspective.
I have 5 modern watches and 4 vintage watches in my collection, so, the obvious answer for me is both!
^^^^Thanks.I am now reckoning it's modern day counterpart would provide a very nice balance of old and new.
Not an easy answer but on balance a modern equivalent. They are better made with more modern parts and no problem getting it serviced. Vintage has its appeal, don't get me wrong.
If I am to grab a watch to wear I know which it will be.
Last couple of purchases have been vintage divers with sales of modern watches to part finance them. So I have been going more vintage lately, which has given me a balance of both with what i now have.
Mostly vintage, but not hard rule.
Depends on the model.
So what are peoples mindsets regarding wearing vintage? Is it a case of, it already has scratches and dings, so it's a wearer without worry, or is it, I don't wear it much because I don't want to make it worse?
I understand that there are also lots of vintage watches that are in mint condition, and other than for investment purposes I don't understand the acquisition of these pieces at all. Why buy it if it's not going to get any wrist time for fear of marking a mint original watch.
I guess my mindset is what it is because I'm not in a financial position to drop big money into a watch just to keep it in a safe. My last nice watch ( CV2014 ) never came off my wrist, I paid good money for it ( to me ) and wanted to enjoy it.
The vintage ones i have are in really good condition but i find i wear them more because they have a few blemishes which mentally it seems mean i can add a few more marks and not be too worried.......
That Speedmaster is a stunner.
I do like vintage, but I prefer modern.
For me it kind of depends on what it's used for? Like with my 16600 (granted not truly vintage but...) I just love the idea of wearing it as an everyday watch and becoming my beater but I just can't!
So my modern PO takes preference. Maybe someday I can wear my SD everyday as IMO (they're meant to be worn)
I like both, something modern for everyday use and vintage for "special".
I sense those veering towards the modern need some gentle persuasion. Just came across this photo' of the Speedmaster.
It seems to tell the time as well, which is a concern for some.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
