What are everybody's thoughts on substantially refurbished vintage watches, essentially turning the watch into a 'new' old watch?
Omega and Rolex (and I assume others) are able to use authentic parts to turn an old beater into something which looks like it was sold just yesterday. You lose the patina on the dial, hands and case wear, which is part of the appeal of a vintage watch, but gain the ability to use the watch as you would a new model (not worrying about swimming in it and stuff like that).
I like the vintage worn look, but with it comes a sense of fragility - is a refurbed watch the best of both worlds or does it belong in neither?
Interested to hear people's thoughts
It depends on the watch. Some, perhaps, should be museum pieces. Otherwise, if it is a watch I'm going to wear, I prefer it in as tip-top condition as is possible. One man's dial with patina is another man's tired look watch. The look I like most, is of something pretty used, but well maintained. So, old and lots of wabi doesn't do it for me, nor does indestructible and unchanging.
Best wishes,
Bob
Couldn't agree more!Originally Posted by rfrazier
If I'm going to wear it, leaving wabi on, just for the sake of it (esp. on an expensive watch) seems a bit pretentious to me....
Alex
Plenty of people refurbish vintage cars to "as new" original condition and it's never regarded as a bad thing.
No one ever looks at a pristine Jaguar E Type and says "if only it had a few dents and scratches, and preferably the rear wheel arches rotting away" do they?
So yes, all for restored old watches provided it's to bring them to original condition, hate seeing old Subs with modern dials for example, why not just buy a new watch in that case?
That's an interesting example and makes good sense. I suppose the perfect analogy would be the leather seats on an E-type - some would have them re-trimmed while others would leave them nicely worn.
You'd think that would be true but my Uncle is an old car nut (specifically 30s bentleys and veteran cars) and is very audible in his hatred for people who over-restore cars - particularly where they use new parts (even NOS) to replace parts which were not totally unusable. To each his own though!
If you can find and use genuine parts - I'm all for it.
I like vintage watches and expect a little wear and tear but if they are battererd - they are not usable in my opinion.
alex
So far my quest to find a mint yet mostly original 5513 has led me nowhere but has given alot of learning and the knowledge that I am unlikely to find a watch of that age that hasn't got signs of age - a little bit of corrosion on the hands for example. So for now the search is over as I just know anything worse than the usual scratches and a little bit of wear and tear is unlikely to make me happy. One man's WABI etc...So, I just continue wearing my U1 (my beater) safe in the knowledge that I've got cash waiting should a true minter or a decent refurb'd one turn up.
Cheers David
Continuing the car comparisons, I like my vintage watches to be like properly restored vintage cars, ie be lovely looking on the outside/glass, but I don't mind and indeed prefer the dial and hands to be original, even if they're a bit worn, and of course the movement should be original even if it has been worked on.
So, it's like the restored jag with gleaming coachwork, clear windows and shiny chrome, but it should have nice original leather seats with a nice 'patina', have original switchgear, and of course be fitted with the original engine. :)
"One man's WABI etc."
Cheers David[/quote]
Sorry i'm new, explain WABI?
Sorry i'm new, explain WABI?[/quote]
Wabi buy a watch and wear for many years, let time & tide take the toll.
Just like life, the ageing process.
For me theres are balancing act with "vintage" watches no point in buying a vintage and then getting it made as new and yes i can see the love of acrylic over crystal or the way a earlier bracelet is made but neither can i wear a beaten up and buggered piece of kit simply because its old there is a difference between Wabi and bad damage.I do however prefer some of the older kit and have a mid eighties 5513 and a snowflake.
I FEEL LIKE I'M DIAGONALLY PARKED IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE
Sorry i'm new, explain WABI?[/quote]
The TZ-UK Glossary is your friend :wink:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=64394
Regarding wabi, I would service a vintage watch so that I can use it as intended to (replace cracked crystal, change seals, lubricate movement) but still keep the watch original as regards minor dings and scratches, or patina on dial and hands (even if they've lost their luminosity).
In the end, it all boils down to personal opinion however :)
+1 to this.
Absolutely my way of thinking, too.
I`ve owned lots of vintage watches over the years. I like them as close to mint condition as possible, but much prefer an original dial and hands provided the ageing (patina) is minimal. A few marks on the case are almost inevitable and I accept this provided they don`t detract from the watch. I have several old Omegas (50s & 60s) that look like 2-3 year old watches; that's ideal for me. If a dial starts to really deteriorate I am happier to get it restored provided it's done right.
I had the dial on my 1950 Seamaster restored earlier this year and I`m delighted with the result, although this decision was easier because I don`t believe the dial is original to the watch.
I struggle with the mystique surrounding Rolex Subs; whilst I can appreciate the subtle differences between the 70s/early 80s offerings and their modern counterparts it would never be sufficient to sway me towards paying big money for one. maybe I`m a philistine.
As for swimming in a vintage watch, I wouldn`t dream of it no matter how well refurbished.....but I think swimming in any expensive watch is a silly idea.
Paul
If a Submariner 14060 is an "expensive watch", then I plead guilty because I swim and dive with it.
Do you think that doing above 80km/h in an expensive sports car is a silly idea? :)
why?, paul
cheers
mike :wink:
Here is one that was refurbished, kept the old dial and the old lume on hands ( the lollipop seconds hands is without any lume left) , light polish and major overhaul of the movement, new rotor, new complete balance ++ . Is now very usable and have the "right" wabi level IMO.
Glad I did it this way and didnt go for Omegas suggestion to change everything.
Cheers
cars can be over restored turning a DB5 into a brand new car is IMHO not advisable Patina is far more desirable but some love what they call perfection
likewise restoring a old Submariner by replacing dial and hands etc is a step to far but replacing the crystal is probably ok so you can see the old dial in detail IMHO
They have stories to tell open the door on a classic car and breath in the aroma :D
Look at the faded dial on a Sub and it tells you a story of its life 8)
Again just my opinion
Wow - that Seamaster is really nice!
As to the topic, I would prefer a watch to be as original as possible. This is not feasible really in the case of 40+ year old watches, and I've seen many vintage Rolex, Omega, etc in London that have been refurbished so well that you could honestly believe they were NOS. The one thing I would want is for the hands to match the dial with regards to patina....I just don't like new white hands on an aged dial.
I like my vintages to be original.
If you want a new looking watch buy a new one IMO.
There are plenty of modern homage watches if you like the old style.
Cheers,
Neil.
Good thread
I believe all collectors have different tastes. But at the end of the day I prefer the vintage watches left original bar a new crystal, cleaning,etc.
On the other hand basket case watches aren't something I'd collect but wouldn't mind bringing life back into. I'd hate to see something tossed aside possibly destroyed and lost forever :cry: . Not all vintage watch models and makes are a dime a dozen, so breathing new life into them I could live with.
Here's why I don`t do activities (swimming,running,gym,hill-walking) in expensive watches; I refer to Rolex & Omega because that's what I collect:why?, paul
cheers
mike :wink:
Despite the fact that the so-called 'sports' watches (eg Rolex, Omega) are designed for a rugged life, they are costly items that justify being kept in as good cvondition as is reasonably practicable. I wear my watches on a daily basis for desk and laboratory work, so they pick up the odd minor scratch that can be fixed by me for nil cost; I`m not at the extreme end of the scale where the watches never see the light of day. However, when it comes to the activities I`ve mentioned, all of which I do sometimes, I am much happier wearing a £10 Seiko digital or a £35 Seiko 5 steel automatic. This way I don`t need to worry when the watch gets a whack or a scrape. Some will argue that watches such as the Rolex Sub are designed as 'tool' watches , but at £3380 purchase price, who's fooling who? Whatever reason motivates us to buy these things, it isn`t the 'rugged usability'.
As for the analogy with driving fast/expensive cars, clearly it doesn`t make sense to buy a car then be too scared to use it for fear of damage. That's why I won't own a classic car that couldn`t be repaired due to unavailability of body panels, but I do own a Triumph TR6 which could always be fixed should it hit anything. The analogy isn`t a particularly good one because (apart from the excess) the insurance company foots the bill for the damaged car but I would foot the bill for the damaged Rolex or Omega. I treat my watches as a hobby/investment so I`m loathe to get them damaged by taking unnecessary risks, whilst accepting that accidents can happen during so-called 'light' use.
3 Years ago I slipped whilst scrambling up rocks on a walking trip. The watch I was wearing (Omega Seamaster pre-bond) got scraped but fortunately I was able to refinish it to an acceptable standard. This taught me a lesson; I was lucky the watch didn`t get wrecked.
I don`t expect everyone to agree with me, but I think there's a strong thread of logic in my conclusion; keep the expensive watches for careful wear and look after them.
Paul
fair comment paul, but just in my case i wear my sd for work so it gets 6 hours in the water each day, inside a pair of coveralls and i would say it has picked up less damage than someone wearing it at a desk!!
cheers
mike :wink:
I recently purchased a vintage gold plated Seasmast 300hz. The plating has been worn through in places and there are a couple of deep scratches on it. I believe it also needs a new battery as it is not working and had an omega repair 4 years ago so i would hope that the mechanism is still in tact. I was hoping that someone could recommend a good watch repair service that could restore the plating? I sent it to omega but they seemed to be of very little help. Thanks
Wabi'd watches are best worn by wabi'd looking owners :D
I wont be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, I am not a number, I am a free man, my life is my own!!!
Be seeing you
Toodle pip
Griff.
Generally when gold plated watches are buggered that's the end of it. It is not usually economically viable to have them replated which is why most people prefer the steel versions.
Try a new battery (344 IIRC) as they only last about a year in the TF's. If no go Paul (Silver hawk) on this forum is a whiz with that electric stuff.
Welcome to the forum.
Cheers,
Neil.
I like to wear watches for what they were intended for when new, my refurbishment is aimed at functuality, new seals and a movement service on a vintage rolex diver for instance. My 1960's 1675 GMT is undergoing that process now, I like the aged tritium and beat up case and crystal, the old stretched bracelet has that been there done that look that I myself have somehow "gained" without realizing it
Hi Neil thanks for the response. I guessed as much about the plating but was hoping someone could tell me otherwsie. Sorry but i dont know what you ment by 344 IRC and TF. Could you explain that to me please?
Thanks
Generally when gold plated watches are buggered that's the end of it. It is not usually economically viable to have them replated which is why most people prefer the steel versions.
Try a new battery (344 IIRC) as they only last about a year in the TF's. If no go Paul (Silver hawk) on this forum is a whiz with that electric stuff.
Welcome to the forum.
Replating really isn't that expensive. I know of one plater in the US and runs around US $60.00-100.00 sent to them case only. I guess it would depend on the value you put on the watch emotionally or currency based.
That sounds reasonable. Were they able to match the gold plating to the same color gold as its original plating, and also do you know of any in the UK?
Replating really isn't that expensive. I know of one plater in the US and runs around US $60.00-100.00 sent to them case only. I guess it would depend on the value you put on the watch emotionally or currency based.
Haven't used them but they are at the higher priced end of the scale.That sounds reasonable. Were they able to match the gold plating to the same color gold as its original plating, and also do you know of any in the UK?
Replating really isn't that expensive. I know of one plater in the US and runs around US $60.00-100.00 sent to them case only. I guess it would depend on the value you put on the watch emotionally or currency based.
http://www.artisanplating.com/pricing/pricinggold.html
I have just aquired this and I know theres lots of faults with it, but you know I kind of like it this way. I also know that I could send it away and spend a shed load on it and it will come back like new, but I am not sure i would want to do that
Sorry my old china, here's a clarification.
344 is the battery number, IIRC is shorthand for "If I recall correctly"
TF is Tuning fork, the type of electronic movement fitted to your watch.
Hope that helps. :)
Cheers,
Neil.
Thanks Neil. I'll get my watch back from omega and try it out.
Sorry my old china, here's a clarification.
344 is the battery number, IIRC is shorthand for "If I recall correctly"
TF is Tuning fork, the type of electronic movement fitted to your watch.
Hope that helps. :)
Not watches, but here is what a clock restorer has to say on clocks:
"The policy of the National Trust, is not to have any cleaning or polishing work done. Their attitude is that it removes the history of the clock. That is not to say the clock shouldn't work. The British Museum's attitude is that whatever condition an artefact came in, it should stay that way. Any artefact suffering from deterioration or corrosion will be conserved and stabilised to prevent further deterioration. "
Having an old watch cleaned up with new hands, dial, crystal and everything bar the case itself (which is then polished 'like new') seems a bit silly to me...
I want my vintage watch as original as possible :P
If you restore an old watch using new parts you may as well wear a fake. :D
^^^^
No
That may be OK with case, dial etc but surely not for movement. Movements wear, therefore the time keeping will be impaired. Purpose of watch is to give time to a reasonable accuracy so therefore parts of movement where worn need to be replaced.
QED
Well my mid-60s 5513 has had a replacement service dial and bracelet at some point in its life. I'm happy with that - it's part of the watch's history after all. Equally, because it is not a totally origianal example that's worth megabucks I'm happy to wear it daily. So it works for me, a watch with a bit of history and character that I'm not worried about wearing regularly.
I did briefly consider getting an original bracelet for it but quickly discounted that idea. I certainly won't be looking for contemporary dial/hands. It really is just fine as it is.
:roll:
All the watches that come out of restoration from Rolex and Omega are all fakes then?
Cheers,
Neil.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
