Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by LondonNeil
At 600 quid a pop to service and no external spares support they are close to disposable toys. Ironically, the plates are still brass and so the Dorian Grey is only skin deep.
Reading about new Omegas and Rolex and the technical advances they have been putting into watches (and I'm sure many other brands too) has got me thinking. Many of the advances are about delivering a watch that keeps its 'as new' appearance. Ceramic bezels that don't fade or wear, sapphire glass crystals that don't scratch or craze, gold plated hands that don't oxidise, ceramic dials that don't fade, modern lume that doesn't orange and keeps going and going, even ceramic cases and bracelets that are harder and more scratch resistant than steel. Does this all mean that the vintage watches for collectors of the future will all be a bit....sterile? No or little patina,scratches or wear that will tell a story of its life, a story of a cherished item worn, used, and grown? Vintage patina'd watches from various decades past are keenly sought, pretty and intriguing objects. I myself have a 1961 Seamaster which has some lovely patina to the dial and I think its oxidation, fading, yellowing and the scratches and wear to the case only enhance it. However a watch bought today, in 50, 60, 70, 80 years could...should, look very very very similar to new. Will this be good? Or will it make for a less interesting pastime collecting vintage watches?
At 600 quid a pop to service and no external spares support they are close to disposable toys. Ironically, the plates are still brass and so the Dorian Grey is only skin deep.
Interesting to remember that much older pocket watches had ceramic dials and glass crystals so were less prone to scratching than acrylic and oxidised dials didn’t happen. But they were more vulnerable to impact damage - less of a problem for an item cosseted in a waistcoat pocket but a real concern for an item getting waved about at the end of the wearer’s arm!
Much as I like vintage watches from the 60s I don’t get dewy- eyed about ageing and patina, I prefer them to look as they did when originally sold. All this guff about the scratches telling a story etc is rubbish, it often means that the owner was a clumsy bugger who didn’t look after it carefully. Likewise, dials often deteriorate owing to water ingress, which is usually caused by carelessness on the part of the owner or failure to maintan the watch. Rubber seals from the 60s were notorious for deteriorating, turning to a sticky dough-like consistency, if crowns and caseback seals weren’t changed a watch would end up leaking. Modern synthetic rubbers are far better.
Thesedays I don’t even think about the history behind an old watch, I simply see what’s in front of me and assess it in the cold light of day, I’m more concerned about its condition and what needs doing to it rather than any stories it could tell. All things being equal, the modern watches will age far better than the older ones in the sense that they won’t visually deteriorate, but the movements will still need attention every few years to avoid excessive wear. As already stated, the high costs of servicing coupled with restricted parts availability will ensure that many end up in drawers when they stop working, particularly the cheaper watches where the cost of service/ repair exceeds the cost of a new replacement.
There’s an analogy with cars here; cars from the 60s and 70s rusted away, mechanically they could always be fixed but the bodywork rotted to a point where repair was uneconomical. Nowadays the cars don’t rust, but the cost of maintaining the electrics/ mechanics becomes prohibitive so a the car gets scrapped despite still being roadworthy. It’ll be the same with watches, a watch that’s still in good cosmetic condition will end up in a drawer when it needs work, the owner won’t want to spend several hundred pounds getting it serviced. The manufacturers are to blame, the practice of restricting supply of parts is killing the repair trade, the days of getting watches serviced at sensible prices will soon be over.
I must admit, I prefer watches of any age to look new.
I have an extremely rare flintlock shotgun that other collectors would sell their wives and daughters for and I upset them when I had it checked over by a gunsmith for safety. I wanted to use it but there was no way I would do so unless it was in proof. I told the gunsmith to clean up the wooden stock and generally give it the once over at the same time.
A few weeks later I took the gun to a shoot and the other shooters treated me like a leper for "defiling a gun". So it's not only watch enthusiasts that like the old worn out look.
Similarly I bought a Rolex 1655 Explorer11 a few years ago and took it into my local AD who has a Rolex approved workshop and both the sales assistant and the actual guy who did the repairs in the workshop spent 15 minutes persuading me not to replace the bezel and not to have it polished.
So today I walk around wearing a watch that looks knackered and it is plain stupid.
When I first showed my 1920s watch people asked if it was a redial because the porcelain was naturally still fresh and bright.
I think what is even stranger is that manufacturers using the modern materials are trying to sell faux vintage stuff with creamed lume etc!
Well if you have a Rolex or omega that's poorly, send it to me to put in MY drawer 😁
I agree with Mick, wearing a watch that’s covered in fine scratches when it could easily be made sharp and fresh is plain stupid, this trend for never repolishing/ refinishing watches us daft. The originality argument doesn’t hold water, the watches were never made to look like they do after 20+ years of hard use, my definition of originality is how it was originally supposed to look........others take a different view.
As for old watches ending up in drawers, it often happens with heirloom watches. When faced with spending a few hundred quid to get the watch sorted out the new owner looks aghast and doesn’t want to spend the money. That’s where the small independent repairers, who would do the work for reasonable prices, could help, but the manufacturers are trying to make this difficult and in the end they’ll succeed.
We all have our own point of view, and if you want to have your watch made to look nice and new that is up to you.
Not my cup of tea, but that's just me.
It’s all about design, I love some of the old iconic designs but I never want to wear a scruffy watch.
That is why I’d always prefer NOS, fully restored or a faithful re-issues.
Some of today’s designs will be viewed as iconic in 50 years time, but most of today’s standard watches are not much different to what went 50 years ago.
What watch could be viewed as a fresh 201? Design ?
I would always choose a watch in the best possible condition, but once that condition has gone replacing parts with modern service items often looks incongruous and out of place.
Luminova on vintage watches make my eyes hurt,new bezels usually have a different finish to the original. Poorly carried out(which I am afraid 99% of watchmakers are guilty of) re polishing is always depressing to soul and value.
Rolexes with thin lugs and Omegas with radial brushes hand polished are watches ruined. A sharp case with its factory bevels in tact, with some nicks and scratches is infinitely preferable to a watch buffed and polished with those original lines lost forever.
If you want a new watch buy a new watch, that old one has charm!
The Rolex Skydweller.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
In that case, I`d better bin this one, I thought I`d done a first class job but clearly I`ve ruined it and it should be scrapped.
Same goes for this Constellation, refinishing it has softened the edges (of which there are many) marginally, I should've left it as a beaten scratched up mess.
I agree, there's some bad stuff out there but it's a sweeping generalisation to condemn all refinishing work. Sadly, this attitude seems to be the prevailing view thesedays and I blame much of that on folks reading on the internet and adjusting their opinions to what they believe they should think. Trust me, both examples I`ve shown here are excellent in the metal, and they look a whole lot better than they did!
There are some finishes that can`t be reasonably replicated by hand work, but there's a lot that can be done to a good standard with the right technique and care. I stopped taking this work on a while back because the way I do it is simply too time-consuming and tedious.
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 24th February 2019 at 12:00.
You have a more delicate hand than most. Is telling though that you found it uneconomic to work to those standards?
There are so many watches cases that have been ruined by careless, or just over zealous polishes, conversely there are very few that are so battered in the original state that they have no charm.
If you want to take a nice original tool watch and make it all shiny and new then why not sell the knackered one at a premium to any number of people who value originality and buy a watch that someone's already had polished at some stage and already ruined and use that as the basis for a perfect restoration?
"A man of little significance"
Not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. The terms polished and ruined are not synonymous.
I do one of two things; I either refinish a watch as I’m asked to do or if it’s something I own I refinish the watch if I think it should be refinished. Thesedays I refinish very few, it’s too much of a ballsache, but I take pride in doing a good job. I find it ironic that the end results of a good refinishing job are now criticised by the orginality fascists whose opinion seems to prevail thesedays, it’s a trend that’s grown over the last few years and it’s becoming the accepted wisdom to scorn refinished / restored watches.
As for the so-called tool watches in scruffy so-called ‘original’ condition.....they just don’t appeal to me. Don’t like the style and I certainly don’t like the scruffiness.
Are you now the spokesman for everyone who takes an original watch with all its perfect age and patina and polishes it up to look shiny and new?
"A man of little significance"
I think it depends on your viewpoint. I'm bored to tears with sterile black and white watches everywhere, so the coloured lume is a nice alternative to me and just a different option. It's like stonewashed jeans or relic guitars.
No, I’m the spokesman for me.
I also wonder whether the high-end watch market will be able to survive the current volumes and prices in future decades.
A lot of 'Rolex-people' (execs, etc) I know are daily wearing Apple watches or fitness watches now instead. If young people don't grow up with a normal wristwatch, it's going to be harder to make them want it later on.
I grew up wearing digital watches, mechanical watches started interesting me when fashions changed away from digital Casios and Swatches and I started enjoying the slightly finer things in life. There's a good chance in a few years we'll all start losing interest in all these gadgets we walk round with and the simpler things in life - watches that just tell the time, phones that just make calls - will become fashionable again, or we'll not have to use these gadgets to provide all the technology and the watch can return to being a piece of jewellery and an archaic way of telling the time.
"A man of little significance"
I got into watches when I bought a Seamaster Pro. The reason was because it's what James Bond had :-) If Garmin or others can get him to wear their brand, an entire generation will be shifted :-D
Then a couple of years later I saw what Alpha was making and I started looking into the very affordable part of the market, and I love being there. That's when I started to look what is it that sets brands A and B apart, what's the difference? I started learning more and more. But to be objective, it's akin to stamp collecting... If people don't get interested in having more than 1 watch, in learning the history and feats then it'll slowly decline.
This Pie Pan is lovelySame goes for this Constellation, refinishing it has softened the edges (of which there are many) marginally, I should've left it as a beaten scratched up mess.
Take a look through the photos here
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/wi...-new-york-city
A variety of watches, new, and old, at a gathering of enthusiasts. I'm sure lots of new watches provoked excitement and discussion, but I bet the older ones did too. I quite like the yellowed lumed rolexes and although battered, the Tudor sub exudes cool. It may still exude cool if it were close to factory condition, but I suspect not, not in the company it is at that meet up anyway.
If course it's all personal preference and that is good, choice is good. My point, slightly, does removing aging, remove choice for an enthusiast and thus remove interest for all at a gathering like hodinkee's or for that matter a virtual gathering like this discussion? I think choice and therefore aged watches are a good thing.
Posting Permissions
