This is a topic which usually divides opinion and yes the perfect answer is an old untouched great condition watch in totally original condition trumps any kind of service replacement or even restoration work undertaken by trusted experts, but the question is, is it acceptable or is it a deal breaker.
From my own experience the vintage Rolex guys are the worst for accepting anything other than original, yet those who dabble in vintage Speedmaster seem willing to accept sympathetic restoration work if it is carried out by an accepted expert such as Simon Freese for example.
Okay, to the watch in question - here is a picture of the said watch.
This is a first generation Seiko Alpinist Champion 850 from 1963 and in any condition is as rare as dogs.
The watch above has been restored, the hour plots have been relumed on the outer ring as have the minute markers that have been painted black. It is understood that because this was placed on a SS ring, over time both tend to come away and on old unrestored watches both are usually missing.
The watch has all its original parts including the second hand with a little D at the end, the only time this has been used by Seiko. The hands are original, but have been relumed to match the outer ring. The crystal has been replaced by a NOS one and the crown is original.
The watch is currently on e-bay listed by a French seller and clearly most of his stock appears to have been through this spa type treatment.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-SEIK...QAAOSwVb5d89Da
As stated, this watch hardly ever appears for sale and in all honesty the seller has made it look like a brand new watch.
I am interested in any views that people have on an old watch being subjected to restoration work that leaves it looking almost brand new. I have seen many of Paul W's posts on work he has undertaken on vintage Omegas and in my eyes this doesn't really seem any different.
Cheers,
Ken
Last edited by Wallasey Runner; 3rd February 2020 at 17:04.
If it were mine I'd have no hesitation in sending it to James Hyman for a sympathetic relume in aged and non-working lume. Original for me is always best but if a watch is compromised, do the best job with it. New lume on old watches looks awful, as do cases that have been refinished by hand when they're supposed to be lapped.
"A man of little significance"
Simple personal preference if you are buying for your own enjoyment and not an investment. I don't mind sympathetically restored.
I'd echo this sentiment because the condition looks great otherwise. Some compromises have to be made with such rare watches. Maybe a better lume touch up/colouring can be done, but it wouldn't bother me that muchOriginally Posted by Mr Curta
IMHO, the restoration of the outer minute markers does not look very good, they seem to dominate, not it a good way, the look of the dial - are the black painted markers all of the same thickness, they seem to vary
I suppose each level of restoration should match the rest of the watch
I could live with the lume but the minute markers are far too thick, that would bug me as it unbalances the look and makes the work appear clumsy. They should be as fine as the lines on the dial.
The colour used for the relume is not that different to that on an unrestored watch. Clearly the only difference is the new lume shines like a torch.
The above looks original, but the damage at the dial edge from 20 to 25 is rather off putting.
I agree with Bill. It needs to look right.
I don't personally think re-luming is a massive deal breaker if it's a watch that I want. Poor, degraded or missing lume looks far, far worse than a sympathetic restoration. One of the guys mentioned him above, but James Hyman is really a magician for this type of work (have a look on Instagram under thealchemistrelumer).
As time goes on, re-lumed vintage watches will be more common as the old lume crumbles away (which is also a separate issue in itself for affecting the watch). Those that hold their value will be the ones done properly.
Steve
If the watch is to be property worn then restoration is more or less a must. If it is for investment it is better to be left as it is with only the minimal of sympathetic tidying up.
Thanks for your input guys, much appreciated. I think the issue here is that plenty of vintage watches appear in places like e-bay and chrono24 that look to the casual observer as almost new. Perhaps tarted up to within an inch of their lives. I am interested in finding a couple of vintage Seiko Alpinists, but it is getting a feel for what looks right and what definately looks wrong.
I used the one in the OP as a good example because it is such a rare watch, yet looks almost perfect - until more skilled eyes start to pick out the things that don't quite look right. I will of course pass on that one. I also think personally that it is over priced.
Many people on here have posted over the years that they like the look of vintage watches and would love to own a nice one, but are put off by the minefield that can catch so many out.
Anyway, makes a nice change from discussing waiting lists, warranty cards and how much profit can be made.
The colour used for the relume is not that different to that on an unrestored watch. Clearly the only difference is the new lume shines like a torch.
The above looks original, but the damage at the dial edge from 20 to 25 is rather off putting.
I could live with this damage for a rare watch . The biggest thing for me personally, is badly polished cases ( all definition gone ) and refinished dials . For the type of watches I am buying/ collecting there is no real need for me to consider or accept anything thats not as original as poss ,as there will always be another one for sale soon.
It is perfectly reasonable to do restoration work on knackered examples, but the king of the hill will always be a pristine orignal.
That first one has not been terribly well done, with the minute indices paint not very consistent, and massively overpowering to the extremely delicate dial segment lines.
And mint green for the lume? No, sorry, that's no good at all.
It should be a mellow golden yellow.
Look at the indices on the second pictured example - honeyed trit. Exaclty as it should age.
That too has had the mint green treamtent, but only on the hands, not on the dial.
Bear in ind that most of these dials have aged too. They would have probably started as silver, and the lacquer over them has quite possibly aged to the champagne colour they now are. That is why I think it is far more appropriate to re-lume an old watch in honey colour, rather than as-new (theoretically) mint green.
And for what it is worth, the second example dial damage is nowhere near bad enough to warrant re-finishing the dial. Some stabilisation perhaps, if you felt the edges were deteriorating, but otherwise to be left as it is.
All IMHO, of course.
Dave
Older watch guys used to relume the hands and dial as part of usual rehaul. You didn't even have to ask for it,it was usual procedure. They also did a light cleaning of dial and hands with rodico paste.
Thanks Dave, very useful. I do agree that those mint green hands look wrong. Interestingly a guy in Canada has listed one which at first glance looks like it has been in a safe since 1964, but using your checking methods the outer trit pips look mellowed, aged and worn and the hands just look horrible - in no way would a 56 year old set of hands look like that. Clearly this watch has been worked on in order to deceive.
Last edited by Wallasey Runner; 4th February 2020 at 13:16.
It's difficult isn't it?
If there were any deception there it would be to describe it as original, when it isn't. But the photos are perfectly clear, the new owner can see that it has been worked on, you just have to examine everything closely.
There is an argument that making those hands pristine white signals the refurb work, and is more honest than trying to make it look honey coloured and old (which camoflages the resto).
You can always tell, regardless.
I have just done it on a vintage watch I have just received.
You shine a UV torch at it, and then turn it off in the dark.
Old lume (radium or trit) will glow brightly for a few seconds, and then dim, right in front of your eyes, so that it is barely visible after 5 secs and cannot be seen after about 10.
A lot of faux lume is non-luminous, and will not glow at all in the UV.
And new lume is charged by light, and keeps glowing for a lot longer. Definitely minutes, possibly hours.
Unfortunately, you need to be holding the watch to check.
And as has been said before, does it really matter? Would the golden example above be much, or any more valuable with original lume????
D
if this becomes a major concern, the only way to buy is with provenance. Essentially that means original owner or max two owners. Obviously extremely tough the older and rarer the watch to know that - at some point you'll have to probably take a risk.
If described honestly you at least know where you stand. If the description is deceiving with the dial, who knows what else may be wrong with the watch.
Mint green was a common lume colour for vintage Seikos in the 1960's, from Silverwaves to Alpinist's, from 62mas's to one button chronographs and more. Where it gets confusing is it seems nothing is ever standardised with Vintage Seiko, I think a lot of it must have depended on what lume compound they had in the pad printing machines at the time they were manufactured as it varies so much! I've seen what I'd judge to be completely original examples of the watches I've mentioned with mint green, beige and off white used, and/or mixtures of both (mint hands, beige dial and vica versa) on all but the 62mas. I'd prefer to see an Alpinist with a relume rather than rotten lume but I'd rather it wasn't artificially aged so that it looks correct but is obvious that it's been done. I do think you're right about the Alpinist model the OP posted (with the minute track) as it never came with mint green hour indicators, I've only ever seen beige lume on examples on my bench, but I have seen beige hour indicators with mint handsets that to my eyes were original.
With regards the Alpinist above, it looks like one I had on the bench a while back that I built out of NOS parts for a customer, although I'd say the one aboves dial is a refinish as the font's too heavy and there's no sunburst finish. The crown's wrong too.
You can never say never with vintage Seiko!
I`m probably wrong for saying this, but there's an old adage that springs to mind when I read comments about restoration:
'Those that can do, those that can't criticise'. Trust me, it's FAR easier to sit on the sidelines and criticise good work in this respect than to actually produce it.
I hate to see poorly restored stuff but I get annoyed when I read some of the criticism. Omega forum's worst for it, that's why I steer clear, it's full of crusty farts who love endless debate over the originality (or otherwise) of a bloody dial.
Paul, that's why I started this thread, to try and find the middle ground. Clearly NOS watches from 50-60 years ago are near impossible to find these days and would come at a premium, but the other end of the spectrum is a bit of a forked path. Down one way is an original watch in poor condition and down the other is a watch that has received restoration work and plainly looks wrong for many of the reasons highlighted in this thread.
Clearly the message that I have taken from this is that you want consistency across the dial, lines of equal thickness, hands that colour match any outer plots etc. The other issue is the honesty of the listings when people sell these watches. Very few will detail the work that has taken place and hide behind meaningless words like used etc.
I have no issue with it, if it's done correctly and professionally then why not return to its former glory. Perhaps if it had provenance or sentimental value I might feel differently. Also I guess if it was something valuable that you would be devaluing by having it done again I wouldn't.
I had this one restored a year or so ago and love wearing it, as it was when I bought it? probably not so much.
I’ve just worked on a 1958 cal 503 steel seamaster for a TZer (Robbo12), the watch was a nice one with original case, no previous refinishing to spoil it, a clean dial but fairly tired hands. I’ve refinished it very carefully using my own procedure, getting the original polished and brushed finishes back but preserving the edges and contours of the lugs and bezel. Deep marks can’t be removed, but the overall appearance is now as the watch looked when new. I replaced the original hands with a used set of genuine Omega items from a slightly older watch, after reluming and slight modification they fit the watch perfectly and look ‘right’. Original crown was retained but I fitted a new seal, the crystal had almost certainly been replaced but responded well to a dose of refinishing. A full service and new rotor bush sorted the movement out, that was straightforward. The end result is one if the nicest vintage Omegas I’ve been involved with, it looks sharp, its waterproof to 3 bar, it runs well and its pretty much as it was in 1958 when the first owner wore it. There are signs of age if you look close, but that’s like looking for the brush strokes in an oil painting, stand back from it and it presents very nicely.
To me, that’s the ideal vintage watch to own. Yes, it’s had refinishing work to the case but its been done carefully. The replacement handset detracted from originality but did the watch a huge favour. Its important to get the right balance between the dial, hands and case, if a dial us heavily aged there's no point in fitting new hands, it won’t work.
Robbo12’s Omega is back with him, it’s a 1958 watch, I’ve just turned 62, I’m v. pleased with the watch......its just as well I’m not into the birth- year watch thing or I’d be making him an offer he couldn't refuse!
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 4th February 2020 at 20:40.
I'm the same; I've got feet in both camps - some of my watches have been restored professionally by the makers (mostly IWC and Omega) and others haven't.
Provenance can be an important consideration but in most cases (no pun intended) the watches are just old and nothing special; it's for the owner/wearer to decide whether they prefer them in their original or 'new' condition.
And Im over the moon with it , your sympathetic restoration is Exactly what the watch needed and the points that are being made here are very valid . It really helps you as a watchmaker if you can start with a good original example as the end result is stunning !
Photos, or it didn't happen 👍
I don’t really do photos, Irarely photograph a watch I’ve worked on, I just breath a sigh of relief when I’m happy with the end result. Until the watch is complete I’m never 100% sure how it’ll turn out, hopefully it’s greater than the sum of the parts, that’s what I aim for.
Servicing a fairly modern watch, with no cosmetic work, is relatively straightforward compared to sorting out the old stuff.
I will post up some photos @ the weekend. Work is manic at the moment and won't get a chance till then
I think a lot of this ends up looking like conflicting opinion, when in fact most people are in general agreement.
The reason "all original" stuff commands a premium is that it is very rare. There are all sorts of processes that diminish the conditions of case, dial, hands and crystals, let alone the movement itself.
Some of those processes can achieve a very nicely patinated look, and some tip over into looking tatty, or worse.
There are differences as to what point people consider better to restore or leave alone.
There always will be on a scale that has every conceivable shade of grey, and is never black and white.
And when the restore decision is made, then it is down to the scale and quality of the work.
I totally understand Paul's frustration with armchair critics poking holes in restoration work.
But at the same time there is ample evidence of appalling things being done to reasonable watches in order to "improve" them.
I am sure that our Ebay searches and so forth have all brought forward examples of re-printed dials where the font is wrong on the sub-dials, lines too thick, no serifing on fonts etc etc.
We have also probably seen things with the wrong hands, the wrong crown, the wrong everything.
And it is a shame to see a decent watch so ruined.
But also, there are loads of examples of exemplary work being done.
I have had cases re-lapped superbly well
I had a WWW Cyma that had 3 of the radium indices missing. They were replaced so invisibly that I had to refer back to "before" photos to identify which indices they were.
My Tudor Snowflake has had a massive dial refurb, and that too looks great. It looked appalling beforehand, so it desperately needed the work.
I was discussing another WWW from a dirty dozen set recently, where the case was actually dug up from a field, and the watch re-assembled from parts, but it looked excellent.
And I have even gone to the lengths of getting a replacement hand laser-cut from 0.2mm sheet stainless steel to micrometric precision, because I could not find an appropriate replacement.
There are instances where some people believe that an example should be left alone to be original, and others would restore it.
As above, there are all shades of grey here.
But mostly I think common sense applies, and we would all agree on what needed to be done.
And once it is done, we would mostly agree on whether it was done well or not.
In defence of "armchair critics" which include myself, all we want is to see good work done. We are very happy to praise good work when we see it, and we need to be allowed to criticise poor work too, so that we can all try and drive better standards.
Dave
I would agree with everything you say Dave and I remember seeing some before and after pictures of that WWW that had been found in a field and it looked superb. There have also been examples of similar on here from people who have found a rare watch in poor condition and undertaken comprehensive restoration work and the finished results look amazing.
I think maybe the difference here is that people on here who undertake such work are enthusiasts and enjoy sharing the results with fellow enthusiasts. The watches that I posted pictures of earlier in the thread are dealers who are basically tarting up watches for a quick sale and I would suggest that it is the detailed criticism of those watches that has probably annoyed Paul - armchair critics. I would argue those armchair critics are doing a good job and helping fellow enthusiasts with perhaps less detailed knowledge waste their money on a watch that has been poorly restored.
Interestingly, I have been following the listing of several really nice vintage watches on SC over the past few months waiting for a nice 1961 example to be listed. I know Paul hates this birth year thing, but if a really nice 18m series Omega appears, perhaps a stunning pie pan for example then I would be very tempted. In recent times I have spotted watches from 1960, 62, 64, 65 and 66 but haven't seen a 1961.
My grail of course would be a Seiko Laurel Alpinist with a 1961 date serial number in the case back, but those rarely come to market and those who do own one won't part with them.
Last edited by Wallasey Runner; 5th February 2020 at 10:36.
I really like a bit of vintage, and have no problem at all with sympathetic restoration; my dad's old Seamaster was really tatty and tired-looking after decades of use, and after STS finished with it, it was nice and tidy but retained some character. I do sometimes struggle with vintage watches that have been completely restored to an "as new" state, but that is a reflection of my personal aesthetic and enjoyment of a bit of patina. Similarly I have a 69ST "straight text" Speedy which is mostly original, and well worn - the case shows its age, the case back is scratched, and to me that adds character, but it's also had a replacement bezel and hands at some point, which I don't mind in the slightest. It's 50 years old, why on earth would it be pristine and/or never have had parts replaced?
Clearly monetary values reflect the fact that chunks of the high-end vintage market think my opinion is a load of old horse-elbows, but then I don't have a red-text Sub and nor am I ever likely to...
Personally I dislike any intrusive form of restoration on vintage watches with repainted dials top of the list.
It's just my predilection but if a watch is offered to me and the dial isn't good enough I won't buy, simple as that.
A watch tells it's story by the patina gathered over the years, once the original dial has gone it's gone forever.
if you are going to scrape all of that off you may be better off with new watches.
As an example, this is a 1946 IWC calibre 88 of mine.
Some might like to scrape all of the original paint off and make it look new. I like it as it is.
Cheers,
Neil.
As promised here are some pics of my Seamaster 58 which Paul has sorted for me
[IMG]
[/IMG]
i purchased this from ebay and the pics were not great BUT I could just about see a good dial in there through the scratches and bad lighting . It came with its original box ,unfortunately the hinge is damaged and stuck together with selotape ! but cardboard outer is in good nick.
As you can see the caseback hippocampus is sharp and the watch was in a honest condition needing some work . I dont think it was worn much .
Its also my favorite combination of steel case with gold furniture love this
Rob
Look stunning. Sort of achieves two things at the same time, clearly looks like an old watch, but also looks in great condition at the same time following the work that has been done. I keep an eye on the e-bay for 1961 watches. There is currently a pie pan with a BOR bracelet listed, but the dial looks a little overly marked for my liking.
All interesting stuff.
Here are some pics of another vintage that Paul did for me at the same time ,I purchased this from a auction back in Autumn last year it desperately needed a service !
The dial may have been relumed at some point, although to the eye it looks fine with a patina dial , which I believe to be original .The hands may have also been replaced at some point ,although I have seen other examples with this style so not sure !
He has refinished the case which is still reasonably sharp , considering its age and a service on the bumper movement
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Information is a bit limited on this dial style ( the squashed 10) and I have only ever seen a couple online either for sale or on forums , from what I have seen the watch looks original. Again I think a great balance to make the watch as wearable as poss .
Rob
The pictures don’t do justice to the 1958 Seamaster, it’s now one of the nicest examples I’ve seen and it’s the type of watch I like to own, I’m very much a collector at heart and examples like this reming me of it.
The bezel and lugs have facets that can easily be lost through a combination of honest wear and careless refinishing. Although this one’s had extensive use the case wasn’t a battered mess, and no previous refinishing had been carried out which could potentially have spoiled it. The sides of the case and lugs still showed traces of the original brushed finish, after taking some of the marks out I refreshed the finish to get it looking sharp and provide the contrast with the polished areas. After giving the watch a dose of hand- finishing, with only the final polish done on a wheel, it looks pretty much as it ought to whilst still having a few signs of wear. The dial is probably original, with a few light marks from previous handling and some light ageing, but on the wrist it looks sharp and clean.
The original hands let the watch down, they were tarnished and pitted, so it made sense to replace them using a genuine Omega set I acquired some years back. A new crown seal was fitted and the acrylic glass repolished, it must’ve been replaced in the past and was in decent condition.
The cal 503 movement in this watch isn’t my favourite, the 470/500 family were made between ca1955 and 1960, the first Omegas to feature a 360 degree rotor. I prefer the earlier bumpers ( they’re bombproof) and the later 550/560 (they’re slimmer ,better designed, and better for parts). The 500 has a weak rotor post that’s easily broken if the watch is dropped, the hairspring stud mounting is fixed so they’re awkward to adjust into beat, there’s a combined ratchet wheel that wears out, and parts are getting v. difficult to find. Thankfully all was good on this one apart from the rotor bush which needed replacement. Cousins still stock it but once their stock is gone this part will be difficult to find. A new mainspring, a bit of work on the barrel, and a dose of expensive braking grease (Kluber 125) helped get the amplitude where I wanted it at 270 degrees, the barrel has a cutaway so you can actually see whether the mainspring’s behaving as it should and not slipping excessively or prematurely. This is a common problem with old automatics, ideally a new barrel would be fitted but they just aren’t available.
It’s a real shame that parts availability isn’t better for watches like this, the supply of good second- hand and new old stock parts is decreasing and it’s becoming less feasible to restore these watches to a good standard. The bits you see, such as dials, hands and crowns are problematic, I can source generic hands that are similar but they’re slightly too wide and don’t quite look correct, the genuine set I used on this was the last ones I have. The crown is now restricted by Omega, usually I can fit an O ring and restore the water resistance but sometimes a new crown is the best answer.
As ever, my advice when looking to buy is to buy the best and be prepared to pay strong money. Look for evidence of recent work by someone reputable, and there’s no substitute for seeing the watch in the metal. Check for rattly rotors ( worn bush) and check for faulty hand- winding, check the condition of dial and hands. Buying tatty examples and hoping they can be restored is flawed, don’t do it, and as I’ve said take great care buying cal 470/500 movements!
Walkerweks right as photos were on my phone and im not a very good photographer , I have been wearing the watch all day and in the sunshine down here before the storm ! . It looks stunning
Don’t worry about getting it wet, it’ll be fine
I have just seen another Seamaster Calandar For Sale from late 50s, no pics of inside caseback so I am not sure on the reference .Its a Black dial gold furniture ,( dont see many of these ) gold plated/ possibly filled ( lug back pics not clear enough).
Dial is heavily spotted all over but looks genuine ,seconds hand is a replacement, lugs are more rounded ( gold plate so this is correct) , gold plate looks to be in good condition but the caseback and medallion is a mess ( previously really heavily polished )
I would love to add a Black dial to my collection , I know genuine black dials are few and far between .But owning the watch below in the condition its in , now makes me question any other purchases.
As some of the other posts in this thread , this watch now is too far gone and any watchmaker would never be able to achieve a similar level of finish that when I put the 2 side by side , I would never be truly happy.
Having spent some time reading this thread it is apparent that restoration is clearly one of those subjects that elicits quite differing and strongly held opinions, but it also highlights that watch collecting is happily a broad and diverse church.
To my mind much seems to come down to whether you're restoring a watch purely for your own personal pleasure, to showcase it to other watch enthusiasts, to make a profit, or any combination of the above.
Sometimes when I read the more "specialist" watch fora it seems like even a public flogging would be too good for anyone who has a watch that has had a single part replaced, but fortunately many/most people who buy vintage watches do so without being perhaps quite so "WIS" as those fora might suggest. Last I checked no-one was being forced to buy a watch, so if someone sees a watch they like enough to spend money on it - and so long as it is not misleadingly described - does it really matter to anyone other than the buyer whether it is original or restored? I would hope not.
I also get the idea that what might appear to one person as patina appears to someone else as damage. Again, though, isn't it down to the individual concerned to decide whether or not a restoration would be of benefit? To muddy the waters still further, we also seem to lack a coherent and consistent definition of where patina stops and damage begins.
So perhaps let's look at some examples.
To me, at least, I would argue that these are example of patina:
This, again to me at least, is on the borderline between damage and patina. Of course it's "just" a quartz Glycine, so unlikely to prompt any strong opinions at the best of times
These, though, are examples of watch (or rather dial) damage that to my mind make the watches unusable:
The first three watches I would (and do) happily wear with little regard for the patina but the latter two were, in my opinion at least, just too far gone to make them of any use as practically wearable watches.
Neither are unique, neither hold any historical or emotional importance to me, neither are particularly desirable to watch enthusiasts, and neither could quite reasonably have been considered as good for anything other than the scrap bin or landfill. However my personal preference was to have them restored, which in both cases required dial refinishing and, in the case of the Breitling, quite some other work besides!
When the work had been completed, both ended up far better than I could have expected.
These are now watches that I will hopefully keep and get many more years of use and enjoyment out of......and at the end of the day isn't that the most important thing?
Some could quite correctly argue that a better alternative might have been to wait around for truly original examples to come up, but my "kick" is from getting watches back into service, so mint examples wouldn't have held anything like the same allure.
To make matters worse, in all of the above examples some non-original parts have been used - whether crystals, crowns, hands, stems, movements or whatever. But without those original parts, which in some cases are to all intents and purposes unavailable, the watches would have been left unable to perform their primary task of telling the time.
Again I am unsure of any accepted definition as to what degree non-original parts can be used to bring a watch back to serviceable life.
In my case the use of "non original" parts makes sense if without them the watch can't be used. With the UG above, for example, I was very happy to replace the original hands with NOS examples of a slightly different pattern. Sure, I could wait for some original pattern examples to come up, but that might never happen. If they do come up then great, the hands can be replaced, but whilst the pattern might then be correct they would likely still not satisfy the purist as they would not be original to the watch. So, scrap the watch or use non-original parts? Personally I am more than happy to go with non-original period examples and then use the watch, but of course YMMV.
Last edited by willie_gunn; 9th February 2020 at 11:44.
Pretty much in agreement with the above comments. Both the restored examples have turned out very well in my opinion, they'll be a pleasure to wear and enjoy.
I agree, overall, but at the same time I have to admit that I would be a little disappointed that the dial re-finisher had not sought out the correct Girard Perrgegaux font.
And it is in those details that the moderate success of a restoration is trandformed into an unqualified success.
I agree it needed doing, and I agree it has been quite well done, but for me, not very well done. Sorry, but that is the way I see it.
Dave
That Breitling looks stunning now, great job. I sense the pressure is off a little if value isn't really a primary consideration. I suppose if you have a late 50s or early 60s Rolex Submariner or GMT then there is always a huge price tag floating around in the background and any decisions taken could have a serious impact on that value.
The watches restored clearly have a value, but by putting on period hands rather than the exact hands you are not devaluing the watch by the value of a family holiday or car. I remember a comment on here that a genuine Milsub second hand alone would cost in excess of £10k.
Restoring for personal pleasure seems to be the way to go, especially when the alternative is to simply throw the Watch away. In this scenario a bit of a no brainier really.
That’s perfectly fine too, and nothing to apologise for.
In the ideal world a NOS dial would have been available. In the absence of that the dial needed to be restored. To my mind (and not that I have anything but limited experience) dial restoration is a bit like classic car restoration, in that I am sure there are different possibilities available depending on the height of your expectations and the depth of your pockets.
Also once you step outside of the boundaries of the commonplace and into the niche sector, one might find that options become limited.
So whilst the market might quite possibly be large and profitable when it comes to dial restoration for Rolex and Omega, for example, for oddities like my G-P the options are naturally going to be less. That’s just life.
So if the font is not 100% correct, firstly one has to ask whether there is a better option actually available and second whether that option is affordable, particularly for a watch that is not intrinsically valuable. I am happy with it, and I would never sell it without being 100% clear that the dial has been refinished. If a buyer is willing to accept that, great, but if not, that’s fine too. It’s not for sale, by the way!
I am not a purist, and my primary desire was to have a watch I could wear and enjoy. If it meets those criteria, that’s fine by me but I quite happily accept that it’ can be quite different for others.
Wise words.
Cheers,
Neil.
I don’t claim to understand the refinishing process fully, but apparently each different font needs printing plates making and for a one- off the cost would be prohibitive. The refinisher therefore has to use the closest they have available unless the customer wishes to pay big money. I had this debate a couple of years ago with a well- known dial restorer when I questioned why they were unable to carry out a job.
There’s clearly been a swing in attitudes towards originality over the past few years, fuelled in part by the internet. It’s almost like an illness, a virus that started in vintage Rolex circles that’s now permeated down the food chain. Those who are fresh to the hobby become indoctrinated by what they read, and the virus spreads. I think it’s reaching an unhealthy level, restorers will refuse to touch anything for fear of upsetting a customer who, in some cases, doesn’t really know what he wants if he’s a newcomer because he lacks the experience.
Yes, we all like old pieces to be in excellent original condition, they will always be the most desirable, but originality for its own sake makes little sense. We’ve seen the absurdity in the vintage Rolex and Speedmaster areas, all that dot over the 90 crap and the silly prices for Rolex milsub stuff, it’s madness. I’m happy for those who suffer from this affliction to be quarantined and cross- infect each other, but sadly the virus hasn’t been contained.
Possibly the firms who refinish dials will give up, there won’t be a business in it any longer. The folks who spend time refinishing watches will give up and stick to movement work (far more profitable), so there won’t be the option to have watches restored any longer or the cost will be prohibitive. We’ve all seen some of the appalling refinished dials and cases on vintage watches, usually from the Asia or some place east, but it’s a mistake to dismiss restored/ refinished items per se.
Personal preference is one thing, but the originality police have gone way beyond that!
@ willie gun Have you not got a strap on that UG yet !
Did you not see this week’s Friday thread? It’s on a black Teju.@ willie gun Have you not got a strap on that UG yet !
Its the same with Speedmasters dot over 90 bezels , with a few scratches this devalues the watch . Hands a bit more off .With perfect Bezels/ Hands going for silly money and a load of clever fakes being made because of this, its bloody difficult !
You can only ever do your best with what you have and build a good relationship with a good vintage/specialist watchmaker ,as they get to know what your trying to achieve.
@ willie Gun No sorry didnt see that thread ,well done looking really good .Brendan's done a great job!
My reply was meant to be tongue in cheek, not a criticism!
And thank you, he has.
Thank you Robbo. Vintage watches do need special attention. People forget that the movements can show extreme signs of wear too. Often for example there are worn wheel pivots or jewel pivot holes which have been corroded by acidic lubricants. Too powerful mainsprings may have been fitted to overcome friction in the train, and balance springs have been left miles off beat or distorted by careless previous repairs. These issues need to be addressed as well as reviving the original outward appearance. Cases can be refinished without softening the sharp edges using the correct tools as Paul W knows well. Dial restorations are always an issue for perfectionists. Getting the correct font does indeed require making an appropriate printing plate. I use a Swiss guy who is brilliant, but not the cheapest. Original missing batons have been replaced by this restorer and frankly were nothing short of a miracle to find. Matching old luminous particularly on trench watches, where the lume has turned brown, requires experimentation with various paint colours mixed with green luminous powder to reach a matching hand colour to the dial numerals. A mixture of brown and yellow paint with green luminous powder seems to work perfectly. All this takes time and experience, which is why independents shine at this type of sympathetic work. The cost in time is often borne by the repairer due to enthusiasm, because charging full whack for these restorations would make them unviable.
There are indeed some very skilful independents on this and other forums who take on this work as a passion rather than purely for profit. I admire them all and respect them all for such dedication to their craft. As WGunn says, many of these watches would stay in a drawer if not for the great care undertaken by such craftspeople.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
