To me relume is a dealbraker most of the time. Might not bring the price down, but surely scares alot of people away. If you have to relume, please do not use "vintage color". I rather buy a watch with a aftermarket insert or crown than having a watch with a dirty soul (relumed dial).
Skickat från min SM-G950F via Tapatalk
Originally Posted by yonsson
A year ago I sold this beautiful 6306 to a friend of mine but today I bought it back. It's the only watch I've bought back, ever.
Mom very glad this one never went through a restoration. ;)
Having read the thread, it is my opinion that your 6306 has been relumed.
Which of these has a dirty soul in your opinion or which has benefitted most?To me relume is a dealbraker most of the time. Might not bring the price down, but surely scares alot of people away. If you have to relume, please do not use "vintage color". I rather buy a watch with a aftermarket insert or crown than having a watch with a dirty soul (relumed dial).
Skickat från min SM-G950F via Tapatalk
This previous relume
Or the one I did after I received it.
Or how about this dial as I received it.
To this.
Yeah, I mean how do they sleep at night
I repeat again, things are largely driven by perception of value.
Just do a gedankenexperiment.
Take old Rolex, just suppose that instead of most of them having been serviced and had things replaced over time and just a few kept with all their old bits intact, that things were reversed. Most people had kept them unchanged and just a few had had service items installed and that these service items were no longer available.
Now you have loads in original condition with patina (damage) and just a few with a cleaner less damaged look. Now which ones would command the most value and which ones would then be drawing the praise?
Mitch
The fact is Seiko doesn't keep parts for vintage watches. In fact if you approach them for such they more or less laugh and ask why you would want to restore an old watch when you can have a new one?
That is the reason that such a large aftermarket parts industry has arisen for vintage Seikos.
You can buy all sorts of replacements but they are never exactly right, good as many of them are.
Also on a more romantic note, an all original vintage watch is a tangible link to the past. One with lots of replaced bits is not.
If somebody wants a new looking vintage they are probably better off buying the new similar equivalent.
Cheers,
Neil.
The object retains its history because of its use over time, not because all the bits are original.
If replacement parts meant that something lost its connection to the past, most of us would have to give back our degree certificates.
That's a good argument and probably true - scarcity can beat aesthetics at least financially. Many have suggested that the Newman Daytona is not the best looking Daytona, and is rare because it was unpopular. I'd still suggest though that certain shades of creamy lume on subs and 1016 explorers simply looks nice, regardless of the value and scarcity, it just happens to be a pleasant shade and in many cases doesn't look damaged or mouldy, and creates a different feel that has a genuine charm regardless of the value.
There's also a sense of something old, and that's mellowed over time that is hard to describe, and you either find this adds a kind of depth our you don't. For me, something that comes from another era has a fascination that creates a kind of aura. It stands out, and tells a story slightly more interesting than, 'I went to a shop this morning'. It helps as some models (and particularly some brands!) can look a touch brash and showy when brand new, and actually look better as they are progressively worn in. Vintage models with a bit of wear don't look like they are trying too hard, don't yell, 'Look at my new watch!', and don't imply buying into the current marketing myths, or aping this week's brand ambassadors. But it's a matter of taste obviously, and a vintage watch in stunning, as new condition also has its own fascination and value. Probably best to just appreciate every stage in the lifecycle, from the box fresh sharp and shiny newness, to the calmer look of something with some history.
I completely disagree.
I wouldn't want any of my family heirloom watches changed in any way but we all have our own ideas.
Cheers,
Neil.
It would be interesting if Yonsson returned to his thread to say if he feels any differently about his 6306 now that it has been shown conclusively to be a re-lume.
In his opening post he said.................
" I promise you, in 5 years, a relumed 6309/6306, 6105 and so on will be worth next to nothing compared to an all original half decent looking example............................
.......... serious collectors won't touch these relumed watches, originality is everything".
Have the aesthetics of the watch altered in his eyes now that its past is known? In my eyes it is aesthetically the same, even if not worth what it was previously thought to be. If you really liked the watch in all its glory before why would you now not be so enamoured of its look, so much so that if you were 'serious' about Seiko you wouldn't touch it apparently?
Perception driven by value.
Mitch
Kind of what I was aiming at in my quote of the his first post above.
Personally I think his watch looks nice but it's my opinion (having a NOS dial) that it's been relumed. But it kind of smacks of karma when someone has been so harsh & opinionated about other people's stuff when their own is the same.
Maybe he's been scrubbing himself in the shower ever since, the shame! That puffy 'tritium' lume will just keep staring at him now with every glance at the watch, kill it with fire!
I stand by my statement, in 5 years a relumed watch will be worth less than an all original.
The perception and opinion of my 6306 hasn't changed, it doesn't look like the norm but it still has the radioactive aspects. If a relume is good enough to fool the owner, then it's a non issue, what I mostly have issues with is obvious relumes like in my first post and destroying originality. If it's already done, then so be it.
You don't know what will happen in 5 years ffs. You can guess...and an 'all original' watch isn't common, no, but one that has had a crystal replacement or maybe even a bezel swapped etc etc well you wouldn't know...Hopefully that will put off the type of collector who thinks that's the only way to enjoy these watches...
Already heard from one who doesn't seem to know what they're talking about and that there are no untouched Seiko about anymore...originality is going to be severely questioned at best anyway in future, at least it should be even now whenever you're looking at these watches. Seiko isn't even that consistent with its own changes of the time. Do you know if a longer sweep should be on a 6105 from 70 to 72? Do all of them have this? Do you know the difference in case shape of the proof asymmetrical 6105 case? You can't even tell what a relume looks like! You didn't know if aftermarket hands were on a 6306. You didn't realise the colour of the hands can be a mismatch against the colour of the dial lume yet you still think you are right about everything and know what you're talking about?
You can't even apologise to Spencer for dragging his name through the mud. You talk about not getting personal? You have criticise the knowledge of others and their experience. Clearly think that noone else does a decent job at restorations if it can't compete with mouldy lume. Failed to accept that that is detrimental to the state the watch is in if left or untreated. You've disrespected one of the most respected and loved members of the Seiko community who has made it possible to keep a legacy of excellent reproduction crystals going for many an owner of 7548/6309/6105/6139 and provide info and videos on his experiences etc etc and yet you carry on like this? What have you done? Told us all we don't know what we are doing?
You can't even admit you're wrong!
I get that I come off as sort of insane after I posted the 6306 and that a lot of people who don't share my views on reluming no see an opening to put me in place. :)
I never said I'm badass at seeing what's original and not, sometimes it's hard, especially when someone posts half decent pictures. In the case of my 6306 I grant that it doesn't look "text book" but I've had vintage SEIKOs before that have gotten a little "puffy". I never even questioned the lume before since I think it acts like radioactive lume. So have my perception of the watch changes? A little perhaps.
I do however still believe in the keep it original if possible and I would probably never relume a watch that didn't have lume falling off the hands. If a relume is so good that it's not obvious and you can pass it for original, then I guess it's only an "issue" if you know it's relumed. The original watch posted however, I still consider it a very clear mistake to relume it, I don't consider it was a ticking time bomb. There are sometimes reasons why a relume is necessary, I get that, I just don't draw my line the same.
I also have to admit that I'm a little shocked that so many posters here are for reluming, didn't see that one coming but I think it makes for a good discussion.
We all form our opinions on the point of view we have, a watchmaker has one point of view and if that is "a ticking time bomb" a relume becomes a logic solution. If someone, for example me considers originality to be important, then the decision to relume is a last resort. Is it not OK to discuss this and to voice my opinion?
I get that a watch can have had hands exchanged through it's lifespan, crystal and other parts swapped during its lifetime, it's impossible to know a watch is 100% original if you haven't owned it from the get go. The 6105 seconds hands is a good example, many swap short hands for longer on some models since it seems to be the original position that the long was correct for that model, this is of course tricky since it's possible SEIKO used both types or swapped during service.
Regards to the "hands thread" I was too quick to answer, bad decision on my side.
Last edited by yonsson; 16th August 2017 at 18:05.
Presuming this means me, also (as with Jim Bob) a rather selective interpretation of my statement.
Waiting for a popcorn or "thread backfire" meme. :D
I read my thread start again and I came off too aggressive, I get that.
It could have been a start for a good discussion but now it's mostly a "I'm right and you are wrong"-thread. I'll be more careful in my statements when starting my next thread, and I won't comment on watches originality in the future.
Light bulb moment. You started a thread and told everyone that you know best and yet you ignored the advice and experience of others more knowledgeable than you. You also make out like we all would relume no matter what, again missing the point entirely. Nobody here has said that they outright would relume a watch just for the hell of it. Many have put forward a reasoning behind why a relume is necessary, though, which is entirely reasonable and it can be done well enough to fool someone who thinks otherwise.
As far as I'm concerned you wanted everyone to see it how you see it. It's thanks to people who took part and countered your view that it turned in to a discussion.
Anyway I probably shouldn't have been so passionate in my response there. But I thank you for your honesty as a reply.
Sepsonto, I am someone who is pretty passionate about these watches and also passionate about wanting to get a better understanding of how to strip the movements and rebuild them and I take it very seriously. So I can only imagine what people who do this for a living might think to the collectors who have been doing this for years. So if I take it personally that's why. That doesn't excuse the way I respond at times so, that's for me to find some restraint.
Lastly, yonsson just read your last response. I think you have probably said what many wanted to hear. And for what it's worth, I respect what you said.
Last edited by Bodo; 16th August 2017 at 18:22.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
