Sometimes no matter how hard we try we just don't get things. I am someone who, when I see people I respect getting something I don't, tries very hard to see what I am missing. I recently embraced Grand Seiko quality. I was sceptical, I didn't get it. I kept looking and tried. In the end I was tempted by the Galante and bought one. Then I got it and now feel that my efforts were rewarded.
I have looked at vintage watches a few times. Trying very hard I have bought one or two, but was never really taken with them. But once more because some people whom I have great respect for in terms of intellect and discernment are very taken with them I keep trying. Today I ventured into central Bangkok to visit a specialist shop who sell vintage watches, with of course a view to buying something if I fancied it. They had some Heuer, JLC, omega, Zenith, Zodiac etc. Probably 100 watches or more, all from the golden era 50s to 70s. I looked at quite number of watches. A good shop with an enthusiastic owner who clearly loves and believes in what he is doing. No matter how hard I tried to persuade myself otherwise, I felt I was looking at a pile of polished up old junk. I couldn't find one watch I would want to wear.
Not only did they appear as the said pile of polished up old junk, but because of the era they come from and the obvious associations with that, an era I grew up in, I felt that even if I could twist my own arm in to wearing one, I would be obliged to don flared trousers and bottle green platform boots and grab an old cassette walkman with Jethro Tull playing full blast in order feel even slightly in tune with what I was wearing.
Sorry can't do vintage. I will continue with my love of post renaissance modern mechanical watches. I give up. Maybe it is just me, anyone else feel the same?
Each to their own I guess. Not everyone is interested in vintage timepieces, I certainly am, I like a mix of modern and vintage in my collection. Aside from some really interesting designs, you can pick up some incredible VFM vintage timepieces compared with what you'd get similar money for a modern watch.
If we weren't all different there would be zero bargain opportunities out there ;)
I get what you write and yet FEEL differently.Originally Posted by java
It is the same as with vintage cars. Look at them objectively and they are just OLD cars that are not up to today's level of ... anything.
Yet see them in their time, as state of the art; both in technical and aesthetical design, then things change.
With watches it is even more so since the heritage thing is something we are expected to pay HEAVILY for. The vintage watches are the tangible heritage, the real things, artefacts.
With watches it is also real ODD.
When looking at the older ones as not up to scratch then really the whole post modern watch tech is the only thing you should appreciate.
Think a bit about that Java.
There is a paradox in your appreciating modern mechanicals.
So there you have it.
The old hardware is just that.
It is also tangible heritage.
Modern made mechanical tech is sort of a hybrid.
A surpassed time keeping tech made to modern quality levels.
Apply this to cars again and it becomes clear how odd it is. A modern precision produced fifties/sixties engine design in a ditto rolling chassis is still a sub standard product as a car by modern standards yet it would be rather cool to have such a Lotus Europe S1.
The thing is that we would not be able to use that car as transport in our daily lives yet we can wear/use such a watch.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 16th January 2015 at 11:54.
So even a gorgeous Omega Constellation Pie-pan 561 wouldn't 'do it' for you??
I don't see anything unusual in your thoughts at all. We all appreciate different things in life for very different reasons.
You've gone to the trouble of looking at something that intrigues you in some depth from various angles and feel it's not for you. I think that's a great trait in life in general.
Far preferable IMO to dismissing something out of hand without even taking the time or trouble to look at it objectively.
Vive la différence I say!
jeff
Mmm - I don't really see the need to wear flares and sideburns to wear a '70s watch (or sport a mop-top or round glasses to wear a '60s one).
For me the 60s and even the 70s (an era I lived through and now via with utter distain on the whole) created some stunningly good looking watches. Possibly no more than today, although I'm struggling to think of any genuinely new designs of the last 20 years that could be considered iconic (and judging by the number of 'new' watches which are scaled up variations of earlier designs, it seems the watch manufacturers are struggling a bit too!).
If you don't like them, fine, why agonise? I see most people here love Rolexes, but I'll never own one, much like the OP's feeling he'll need to wear flares with a '70s watch, I can't break the association with red-braced morons in the 1980s and Rolexes.
It's irrational, but there you are. I WANTED to like the Daytona (As I've been a big sportscar racing fan for most of my life), but it always looks too small and crowded a dial to me.
The Sub's ok, but I find I like the styling of some of the watches that it's spawned more and I've no feeling that I need to own a Rolex, that others often state they do.
I do quite like the Explorer and the Milgauss, but not enough to want to spend the money they cost. I like the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms a LOT more than either, but I'll probably never spend the money one of those costs on a watch either (it's more than I'd feel comfortable spending on a watch, even if not, strictly, more than I could afford).
So, in answer to the OP (and in the hope that this isn't taken as an anti-Rolex diatribe), just because others 'get' something (no matter how much you respect them), doesn't mean you have to. In fact, differences are what make people interesting!
M
From this century I have a Rolex Explorer 2 and a Seiko Stargate. Everything else is vintage and almost all made between 1968 and 1977. I especially like the designs of watches from that era, when a lot of new technology arrived in short order (automatic chronographs, electronic, quartz, digital, deep sea watches etc).
I'm not interested in most modern watches (from memory I'm not sure I'd want to wear anything from your collection!) but then I'm not interested in modern cars either, preferring to drive something with little grip, relatively low weight and no assistance to the steering, brakes, handling or whatever. To me modern cars are overweight boxes designers try to make as good as possible. Functional and safe, yes, but very few of them are interesting to drive. A lot of modern watches look too blingy to me, too much like jewelry (and I have a stardust MQ Omega!).
I would love one of the plain high beat Grand Seikos - an SBGH001 or SBGH005 - or the SBGJ005 GMT, they're beautifully made and to me the design of the SBGH001 is perfectly executed, despite it being a fairly simple and plain design that's been done many many times before. In fact were I to be choosing now between buying a new Explorer 2 or SBGH001 I'd go straight for the Seiko. It's also a watch I look at and think I could have it as my only watch.
So I think for me it's about the design, and much preferring the older ones.
Just passed a very pleasant 10 minutes at the end of a consultation chatting with a chap about watches even though he was wearing a Hamilton that I was completely un-enthused by and I am wearing a 1969 Seiko...
I guess it is a personal preference and all of us have different personal taste. I personally love modern watches and vintage. Unfortunately I do not own any vintage watches at this time just dream.
Roger
Don't beat yourself up over it! If the appeal isn't isntant, they probably aren't for you. I'm the other way, I like some new watches but I feel almost relieved if it's a discontinued model that's not sitting in a shop on the high street, it instantly becomes more interesting and wearable. And older ones sometimes seem to have a glow that's missing from brand new ones. Shiny new things have an appeal of their own, but it's a different appeal. And some vintage pieces are indeed old junk of course...
One litmus test might be Rolex - either you feel that some of the older designs are a bit nicer than the current ones, and the faded lume / bezels looks charming, or you just think the latest one is by definition superior.
I wonder how you feel about the many new watches that so clearly revive old styles?
So even a gorgeous Omega Constellation Pie-pan 561 wouldn't 'do it' for you??
Far from a hunk of old junk… if you can find the right piece it might tick the box. I found this in an antiques shop in Cheltenham and I had always wanted a pie-pan with arrow heads. I can only assume it was bought as a 'best' watch and best only happened on a very limited amount of times! So basically as new. Maybe if you can find an as new vintage it might help?
But if you don't get on with them, no worries Java as you have some stunning modern pieces to make a lovely collection!
Why not a Seiko 6309-7040?
Everyone should have one of these iconic divers.. like this all original beauty:
Imo Grand Seiko offers THE most extreme examples.
The vintage models are by and large simply time perfected. No frills and at the summit of spring oscillator time keeping, 5 Hertz with today unequaled performance and all.
Then a break, until according to Seiko the time has come for high end qco tech to be showcased as the pinacle of Seiko's watchmaking. Again simply time perfected. No frills and at the summit of quartz oscillator time keeping. They produce so right until this day!
These two are imo simply contemporay summit of time of the day perfected. The one vintage tech., the other modern tech., but the same thing.
Imo addressing Java's 'issue' to perfection is Seiko bowing to the commercial success of the mech tech appreciation, dare I write fashion.
Modernized old tech at GS perfection.
Newly designed spring oscillator tech.
Newly developed spring driven quartz oscillator tech.
Pick you choice. Or not and love them all.
I'm with you 100%, Java. Give me non-vintage every time.
I guess you're into it or not Tim.
I love vintage watches in the same way as when I see a fella in a nice Jensen Interceptor going down the M5 with a guy in there, unshaven, fubar'd hair, wearing Ray-Bans, in my eyes looking way cooler than a young guy with designer hair, tan, clothes, phone, screaming past him in an F12.
Up until recently I would agree, I liked the modern or relatively modern tidy version of a watch. But then there are some anomalies.....
Taken from an old sales add on here. Been looking for a similar one since.
You're not alone Tim, I wouldn't touch vintage if you paid me to.
Like yourself, I don't see beyond the junk pile, and with our similar wrist dimensions, the vast majority of it would look like a pimple on a hippo's arse!
I don't feel that I'm missing anything by not having some (contrived?) connection to the past, but just like tastes in brands, we all differ in what floats our boats.
I'm interested in what people who are saying "I don't do vintage" wear?
Do you all have only designs that are very recent or do, as I suspect, many of you wear watches which are really homages to 'vintage' designs? Maybe a little bigger and certainly with more modern (better?) movements, but hardly modern, except for a bigger case (maybe) or some blingy (or shotblasted/brushed) changes to make them more 'of the moment'.
Looking around, it's hard to see that many original, modern watch designs that don't owe a great deal to designs from the 60s and 70s.
If you just like a new watch because you think they're more reliable, fine, but to brand all 'vintage' watches as 'junk' seems a bit silly to me.
M.
I had my first watch back in the sixties, it was a cheap generic Jewellers own lable Swiss 17 jewel hand wound and it was complete rubbish. Maybe if I could have afforded an Omega things would have been different. Got my first decent cheap watch in the seventies a Seiko Quartz.
I admire the quality of that Omega Pie Pan but have desire to own one.
One man's junk pile is another man's treasure trove....there's nothing new about that, and it doesn't just relate to watches – cars are another prime example.
With regards to owing a great deal to older designs of a bygone era – I'd like to see those which went before my Seiko Spring Drive, or the Perrelet Seacraft and its GO-inspired wet-suit extension mechanism.
Quite simply, they didn't exist, and I don't feel the need to own some piece of modern ancient history to enjoy what I have – the vintage and the modern are not inextricably linked, and it is possible to be perfectly satisfied with not finding any vintage stuff remotely appealing.
You seem to be confusing old watch designs with the old watches themselves - two very different things.
Timeless: a way of wearing vintage or modern (with acknowledgement of the vintage) - win-win.Up until recently I would agree, I liked the modern or relatively modern tidy version of a watch. But then there are some anomalies.....
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
am with you Tim.
Love the history, heritage and innovations. Just can't get excited about wearing vintage
Have tried several, all to be moved on..... save for my Speedy Mk 2 Racing Dial bought from a well known TZ Omega king. That particular watch gets a lot of wear and I enjoy it immensely. But its not because its vintage - its more to do with the 1970's being full of childhood memories, the watch itself being substantial and the cool colours.
i've tried a few old examples of watches that i currently own (speedie, sub & similar) and just find they feel a bit too fragile for my liking. i'm a clumsy lump and always think that a birthyear Pepsi on a stretched bracelet wouldn't last 5 minutes, but that is the main reason for giving them a swerve.
the more obvious styles that might work are the dress types and then they are just too small for me now, what with my being 6'5" and used to 40mm+ on the wrist for the past 10-15 years.
always admire older pieces when i do see them on others but just not for me. Good thing Dad doesn't have a Double Red knocking around as i'd probably p/ex it if it was left to me!
But you already own a gold Piaget, don't you? :)
Just a little touch of make-up; just a little touch of bull;
just a little 3-chord trick embedded in your platform soul;
you can wear a gold Piaget on your Semaphore wrist;
you can dance the old adage with a dapper new twist.
Jethro Tull - Crazed Institution
FWIW I don't get vintage either, at least not att the current market prices. Crappy movements compared to todays, hard to source spares for some, knackered cases, stupid phrases like "Wabi"... the list goes on.
It's a price bubble right now anyway, within a couple of generations noone will have a clue who Paul Newman was or care about what watch he wore....
I'm with you too Tim, although I put that down to my age and the nineties being mostly full of tat!
I would be tempted though but a pristine red sub or double red SD though ;)
Obviously, but I guess that's my question, rather than any confusion on my part.
Is the dislike of "vintage" watches the designs or just that they're old and worn out? Surely any watch more than a few years old can be worn out or restored to as new condition?
PJS' examples of 'unique' modern design suggests his dislike IS for the fundamental designs.
To me, it sounds as if the basis for discounting 'vintage' is divided too (rather than having small variations on a personal basis).
Nothing wrong with either viewpoint (it's a free world), but to discount every 'vintage; watch as 'worn out' seems to ignore the fact that some (like cars as others have made the analogy) can be in 'better than new' condition.
I guess it might be an age thing, too. I look at, for example, Seiko Monsters and think they look bulky and childish (and some will recall that's nothing compared to my dislike of most G-Shocks) and find many modern watches (even those from makes I admire on the whole) large, bulky and a bit crude in their design. Vintage designs, with notable exceptions, just seem a bit more elegant and economical to me.
Maybe I've just reached an age where I find comfort in things that are designed in a time when my view of aesthetics was being shaped and struggle to come to terms with modern design cues. I'm sure that comes to most people to one extent or another.
M
Last edited by snowman; 16th January 2015 at 15:23.
I've had many a fine quality, interesting and stylish vintage watch. I hardly wore one out of the house except on rare occasions and I didn't like it. I admire the style but prefer new/modern. I have a particular preference for reissues - all the style but with upgraded movements, crystals, water resistance.
Gray
... And as mentioned, the prices of vintage are hugely inflated compared to 20 years ago
Gray
I like the designs, e.g. non-WGS Sub/GMT dials, panda dial Daytonas, the look of aged tritium etc but I agree fully with this:
In addition, I personally find old watches too thin and too small. I also agree with this:
This is not meant to be flippant in any way, but surely the price will increase at a faster rate the older a watch gets as its 20 years on and there are less examples of it as the time passes - especially in good condition.
Nothing wrong with Jethro Tull and his drummer Clive Bunker is to this day a very dear friend of mine.
Still can't do the vintage watches though. As for a Tou Tou. If I can find one to fit I'll give it a go
I'm afraid I'm with you on this, I love the look of vintage but hate marks on my watches so only really buy new.Maybe if I lived in a big city with good vintage watch shops, but where I live they're just junk Imo.
Sounds like you are too old to do retro. My middle son has nicked a vintage Omega bumper watch of mine, retro is quite cool with many younger people. I have a mixture of modern(ish) and ancient which probably makes me a man of questionable taste.
Had one when the were newish, not sure I would find it too interesting now with the old pushrod engine from the Renault 16
Loved all the old Lancias and Alfas from that era but once again after driving much more modern cars they are just not adequate . Not that many years ago i had a Testarossa as a weekend car. No PAS and needed two feet to de clutch, bit of an old lump, I decided after a while. I think I prefer my cars modern too.
Where's the shop Java?? next time I am in Krung Thep I will have a browes
I find this a little odd. Today's new watch is tomorrows vintage watch. At what point does a watch cross over to being vintage? So at what point do you start to fall out of love with it? As it gets older do you then love it less and less? I've been lucky enough to see some of your watches and trust me somebody will love them even 50 years from now.
Imo the most practical one today.
Since the car is such a lightweight the engine makes it rather lively and at the same time keeps the speeds down to sensible value. Also a no worries, low maintenance, dependable power source.
You would be aghast by the driving experience though. No creature comfort and modern traffic around you makes bungee jumping feel safe in comparison.
Btw transferring our R16 pushrod engine view over to watches, it would mean a Citizen or Seiko TC qco engine, would it not??!!
The way I see it, with cars the practical superiority of the modern product make the vintage ones simply a NoNo for daily use, whereas with watches the charming idiocracies of the obsolescent wiggly spring tech are not a problem. Least of all when it was recently made or like in the case of the GS engines of modern design.
Shop is called "Because I Like it" Siam Discovery (Not Siam Center nor Siam Paragon) level 1
Prices were pretty constant - the same type of watches, say vintage gold omegas, would be the same prices for years across markets, auctions and so on. Then came eBay etc and prices started to get ramped up. I'd say 400-600% for the same watches. The numbers of watches is pretty constant too with few being lost or destroyed after a certain point. What's up is the demand and sellers, seeing one sell high somewhere on the net, price theirs to do the same. There are curious blips too where what appears to be a quite rare watch does well then suddenly lots of people want to sell theirs
Gray
Me too. I've owned an old AirKing. Loved the look but too damn small. Hate aged lume as well. I own a couple of perfectly lovely 70's Breitling that I need for the movements for a project. I've tried to wear one and it lasts about 10 minutes until I go and put something else on!
I might try a 5513 at some point but I dare say, it won't last long :(
vintage watches dont float my boat at all.
far too small in most cases even if they are aesthetically pleasing
I'd be interested to know how big 'too small' is to those citing it.
I've got a number of vintage watches which are over 40mm. Surely that's big enough for most?
It's like saying you don't like vintage watches because the dials are blue...
M
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
for me, anything under 43mm tends to be too small for me. i have a seamaster chrono at about 41 which i can manage to wear happilly enough but that is very much an exception. i know there are large vintage watches but as i said in my earlier post, most tend to be too small.
also, i dont see what wwould be wrong with deciding you didnt like blue dials?
For me, two factors come into play if I'm thinking about vintage - scarcity and nostalgia - and they can both skew my judgement.
If a watch is hard to come by, I might tend to overvalue it - because desirable things are usually scarce - right?
For me though, it's a negative force - I wouldn't enjoy the responsibility of guardianship of a genuinely rare, significant watch - even modern watches can sometimes be over-revered IMO.
Nostalgia is far more potent and enjoyable and requires no justification. I have two Seiko vintage watches, a Bellmatic and a handwinding gold plated dress watch (it's nicer than it sounds), nothing fancy. What I like most about them is their aura of old-fashioned, understated, quiet and self-assured, no-nonsense masculinity. There's also a certain honesty about them. See what I mean about nostalgia being potent.
I don't regret buying most of my watches, even where they are worn only several times a year and my vintage Seikos are no exception. Retaining the variety keeps things interesting without resorting to trading or endless expense. Happy Days.
It seems quite simple to me. You are a man of taste, that is clear. And your taste is your own - heaven knows, I still remember the boots you were wearing at a GTG in London.
The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter how hard one tries, if you don't like something you just don't like it. If other people don't like that well then they can b****r off.
It would be a pretty dull world if we all liked the same thing and in fact this forum would probably not be the place it is without discussion.
I've heard this said many times on here, buy what you like. Not what you feel you should.
I love the look of many older watches and have even tried a couple, however when on the wrist they just don't have the same appeal. Can't think why, it's a shame really.
I don't do patina either. If it was my patina it might be a bit different, other than that sometimes I can't help but think that the watch just looks knackered.
An interesting thread.
My experience, since I've reached my forties, is probably the opposite to the OP's.
All my large (40 to 42) high end watches (even my dress ones) have taken a back seat, and I have recently bought myself a vintage Corvette dress watch on a black strap-gold plate-1960's - with a quick- set- date - 35.9mm diameter - manual wind - and I've worn almost exclusively for the last 6 weeks (save for when I go to the gym and use my ABC watch).
Cost around £50.
I think the watch feels overly light (is that because modern watches are unnecessarily too heavy?) and all the gold plating is still there.
Although some may think it's too small, the style of the watch and how it looks on the wrist, is spot on. It doesn't spin around on my wrist and stays put.
It is also very accurate and gains about half a minute every couple of weeks.
I wholly agree with you that you shouldn't buy watches that others think arere cool, JUST BECAUSE they think they're cool. You buy them for yourself and your pleasure.
I don't know about you OP, but I find that as I get older, my tastes change. Certainly vintage has opened my eyes up to at least one great watch with character (which started with my Seiko 6309 diver).
Maybe when it comes down to it you just prefer shiny and brand spanking new?
To each his own.
Still want your moser :)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
