Reply With QuoteThese are my thoughts also. I currently wear my 1665 on a daily basis, and I find that I worry about it no more nor less than if it were a modern piece.Originally Posted by Jdh1
A few people seem to worry about wearing vintage on a daily basis and I wonder why? For me the reverse is true - they already have signs of wear so you don't worry about them picking up one or two more. Why would I worry about wearing the Ed White Speedmaster, for example, any more than a modern equivalent? What would you do in a modern £3k watch that you wouldn't do in a vintage £3k watch?
These are my thoughts also. I currently wear my 1665 on a daily basis, and I find that I worry about it no more nor less than if it were a modern piece.
16610 or Explorer ll or Omega SMP during day and anywhere "rough"
5513 or "older" Omega, evenings or where I expect 'soft" conditions
New for me, I'm just not that into old stuff. I have new(ish) cars, guitars and house and don't see the appeal in old and knackered. The only exception is my '93 Speedmaster as I think an older design like that needs tritium and plexi. I've had older cars and guitars before and hated the constant maintenance and risk of failure at any time.
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.
I'd worry if the vintage watch would be extremely expensive to repair.
Vintage is my preference. I definitely would be more worried about a modern piece getting damaged than a vintage. All my vintage are as tough as any new watch so I don't worry about them, the way some talk here is that anything with age is going to fall apart when on the wrist. I doubt the majority are going to cost anymore to fix when they go wrong than a modern equivalent, in my experience it's been considerably less.
Definitely vintage. But it must have been looked after well.
A benefit of vintage watches is also that they can become quite unique. Yes, you may be wearing yet another sub or gmt, but when it's 40 years old I bet it doesn't look exactly like the next guy's.
What about water resistance? I can't own a watch I can't get wet. Find it seriously annoying.
Also both vintage watches I've owned have kept atrocious time. For me, anything over ten seconds gained a day is intolerable, and I can't abide a watch losing time even if its only a second. Worn movements don't cut it.
A lot of the perceived fragility, for me, is feeling like I need to preserve a vintage watch in the condition in which it came to me. I don't feel any such obligation to something brand new, and will happily wear it in the shower, mess about with my bike, fit headlight bulbs etc, and if I ding it, it's my ding.
It depends on what your priorities are really.
You can get old watches serviced so they keep time, just as you can modern ones. My 1976 Marine Chronometer is both incredibly accurate and watertight.
Someone on here uses a lovely pre-moon Speedy as his beater, it was his dad's watch. My last '68 Speedy was serviced by Duncan at Genesis and was not just very accurate but also watertight. The watch on my wrist at the moment is a red Sub from 1972 and it was pressure tested to 100 metres by Duncan before it came to me last year. Old watches can be made to be watertight and take the same abuse a modern watch can. Sure, I'd rather not scratch the bezel on my Sub but then I'd rather not scratch the bezels on any of my watches. I only don't wear vintage out to the pub in case I get pissed, or someone else does and somehow damages it, or if I get mugged! At least with an insured current watch I can get it replaced like for like.
"A man of little significance"
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.
That's one reason why I hesitate about valuable vintage. I don't want the responsibility or to be held accountable for my guardianship of a piece.
I don't deny the obvious charisma or the rich vein of appreciation that vintage appears to offer, but I am also unsure if I am prepared to devote either the time necessary to research and obtain a worthy piece, or the 'head space' assumed by its heritage baggage whenever worn.
Despite these reservations, I am presently considering the idea of a Smiths W10, that upon which my PRS-29 A&B are founded. This isn't because I expect the W10 to offer superior wearing qualities but entirely because of its Made in England manufacture. Its daft I know, but somehow I feel that wearing such a W10 could help keep alive the distant hope one day of a return to true English watch manufacture.
Edit: That last sentence could be a fig leaf of sorts because I'm not yet sure if my true motivation has more to do with nostalgia, exclusivity and even vanity, albeit unwittingly - I am still working this out.
Last edited by forpetesake; 16th January 2014 at 11:29.
Its not about adding wear for me, it's about water resistance and the ability to clean without concern.
Not necessarily rational but never mind.
Its the one reason I wouldn't wear a speedmaster of any description.
Couldn't you just take your watch off when you're scrubbing yourself with a toothbrush in the sink?
[QUOTE=forpetesake;3004482]That's one reason why I hesitate about valuable vintage. I don't want the responsibility or to be held accountable for my guardianship of a piece.
I don't deny the obvious charisma or the rich vein of appreciation that vintage appears to offer, but I am also unsure if I am prepared to devote either the time necessary to research and obtain a worthy piece, or the 'head space' assumed by its heritage baggage whenever worn.
This is a good point I think. To draw a parallel I've had various vintage guitars over the years and I had something that was utterly mint - just like new, until a small chip appeared in teh paint...I assume it must have been me but I had no idea how it happened. I was so angry that for 50plus yrs that guitar was as new and within 2 days of me having it it was damaged. I couldnt even look at it for months after that....sometimes the responsibility weighs heavy with these sorts of things
or you could buy something "worn" and not even notice new dents!
It would have to be vintage for me, often are more unique and get good comments of people
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.
Posting Permissions
