Please define vintage..

[johnswatch]

It's great to have a vintage forum at last. Could we define vintage?

Is it 25+ years?

This will hopefully be a great resource for all the old Marconi's, 1920's cocktail watches, bubblebacks etc.

I'd be really disapointed if this forum ends up swamped with endless 'look at my 1970's submariner' type posts.

I'm beginning to get the Rolex collecting bug and informaton wanted posts tend to get pushed back to page 10 on the main forum within 24 hours due to endless wrist shots and 'what are you wearing today'.
Don't get me wrong, the main forum is great and has some of the nicest posters around along wth a great inclusive attitude but real histrical info can be hard to find.

[lobo58]

It's great to have a vintage forum at last. Could we define vintage?

Is it 25+ years?

This will hopefully be a great resource for all the old Marconi's, 1920's cocktail watches, bubblebacks etc.

I'd be really disapointed if this forum ends up swamped with endless 'look at my 1970's submariner' type posts.

I'm beginning to get the Rolex collecting bug and informaton wanted posts tend to get pushed back to page 10 on the main forum within 24 hours due to endless wrist shots and 'what are you wearing today'.
Don't get me wrong, the main forum is great and has some of the nicest posters around along wth a great inclusive attitude but real histrical info can be hard to find.

Could be wrong...but I think Rolex defines it as 30+ years.

[astcell]

Vintage: It tasks or looks bad but we have to pretend we like it due to other factors.

[springer]

My definition is 20 years old and a discontinued model.

[fly-dad]

It's great to have a vintage forum at last. Could we define vintage?

Is it 25+ years?

This will hopefully be a great resource for all the old Marconi's, 1920's cocktail watches, bubblebacks etc.

I'd be really disapointed if this forum ends up swamped with endless 'look at my 1970's submariner' type posts.

I'm beginning to get the Rolex collecting bug and informaton wanted posts tend to get pushed back to page 10 on the main forum within 24 hours due to endless wrist shots and 'what are you wearing today'.
Don't get me wrong, the main forum is great and has some of the nicest posters around along wth a great inclusive attitude but real histrical info can be hard to find.

I'd say try the search function....you'll be amazed at what you'll find....like this:

Go here,

http://www.network54.com/Forum/207593/

Wonderfull gentlemen with some real experts on all things Rolex vintage!:cheers: The dial section alone is worth the price of admission.:thumbsup:

And yes I tend to prefer the older references. This was a different era where watches really were used as part of necessary equiment for a specific task and were treated as such.

My favorites have always been the GMT family and the Subs.
While I'm fortunate to have examples of both vintage and modern, vintage is where my heart is.:cheers: I guess being the orginal owner of some they don't really seem that old to me. :chuckle::chuckle:

My humble group,

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5111/newgroupxx0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Imtiaz]

My definition is 20 years old and a discontinued model.

Agreed. 20 years is a long time for a watch. That would be the treshold of vintage for me too.

[Skullring]

Agreed. 20 years is a long time for a watch. That would be the treshold of vintage for me too.

Yea!! 20 years I'm in the club.

[mike]

As with most things it depends on who you ask.:chuckle:

Twenty five years has always been a number that comes up.
The purist will state the watch must have a plastic crystal.

Yet others will state a movement that has been discontinued is a criteria.

I think as times change we have to show some flexibility in our definitions.

In my view the reference must certainly have some years to it, but I tend to lump the transitional 16760s, 16800, 16660s, etc...into the vintage camp.

I also view vintage and desirability as two very separate entities. There are many pieces that because of their age certainly fall into the vintage camp, but for any number of reasons have not attained the status of other references favored by the vintage community.:cheers:

[goduke1]

Yea!! 20 years I'm in the club.

As am I! Mine is 37 years young!

[Lowflight]

I am more strict and say anything with Plastic Crystal AND and Matte Dial in the Sports Watch area. Who cares about the other watches:justkiddi

[Lol-x]

I think that without question vintage will include models that are no longer produced by Rolex. :agree:

As stated by mike, vintage to some is 'plexiglass (plastic) crystal.

Mike also states that flexibility needs to be given to the definition.

Thus vintage might even feasably be extended to the 14060M without the COSC.

However, I would tend to the view that if it hasn't been produced in the last howeversolong recent past, it is vintage.

It's no big deal, each item needs to be considered on it's merits, for example, I have a 1988 model that has a sapphire crystal and a double quickset movement (that Rolex still uses today).

Just enjoy the discussion and the watches :chuckle: :banghead: :thumbsup:

[landroverking]

I am more strict and say anything with Plastic Crystal AND and Matte Dial in the Sports Watch area. Who cares about the other watches:justkiddi

I would be on board with this deff.

[SLS]

Vintage, watches with acrylic crystals & matte dials.
Transitional, sapphire crystals with matte dials (sometimes glossy) and a high beat movement.
Modern, sapphire crystals, glossy dial & high beat movement.
Scott

[Tools]

I think that TRF should be on the cutting edge of defining "vintage"

The days when you could easily say "plastic", or 25 years is quickly becoming passe'.

For example, Sapphire has been with us for over 30 years, so to exclude a "80's Gold GMT, DJ, or Day Date for that criteria might not pigeon hole it correctly..

Also, the GMT 16700, along with it's movement, has not been produced for over a decade and many are 2 decades old........when does this one become "vintage"

For Subs, the 14060 took over for the 5513 over 20 years ago, so everybody can agree that the 5513 is a vintage (but some may not be 25 years old). Yet, the 14060 has, itself, been replaced by the 14060M for over a decade...

So, I say, let's not bury our head in the sand and proscribe certain absolutes to "vintage" but help to redefine what will be the collections and vintage stable of a collector of the 21st century.......

...............:cheers:

[mike]

The days when you could easily say "plastic", or 25 years is quickly becoming passe'.



Excellent point Larry.:thumbsup:

Let us consider the "Transitionals". While one reference, the 16750, might meet the criteria of some in that it has an acryllic crystal and matt dial,

Mine, 6.3 mil

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff286/mike381/16750.jpg

How does one fit the 16800 which never had an acryllic crystal, but was possessed in the early versions of a matt dial,

Mine 7.3 mil

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff286/mike381/150_5010-50-1.jpg

given that two references ran at the same time?:thinking:

Additionally what would be their status if when serviced their dials were changed to gloss with WG surrounds as these were used in the latter days of the reference and are correct replacement dials (of course tritium vs luminova aside).

And what of examples of either from the mid 80s that were born with gloss dials?:cheers:

[Davvan]

...will qualify. :thumbsup:
-Rolex 1973 1803 Day+Date
-Rolex 1977 1665 Sea-Dweller
-Rolex 1978 16030 DJ Tiffany
-Tudor 1969 7017 Date-Day
-Tudor 1968 7021 Snowflake...incoming!!
......and the bastidz
-Blancpain 1974 Fifty Fathoms
-Breitling 1988 Navitimer

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/IMG_0718.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/IMG_0658.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/29738profile-2.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/7021-5.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/IMG_0734.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/IMG_0702.jpg

[Jocke]

In my opinion is still:

Plastic= Vintage
Sapphire with matte dial = Vintage
Sapphire = Modern

Jocke

[mike]

...will qualify. :thumbsup:
-Rolex 1973 1803 Day+Date
-Rolex 1977 1665 Sea-Dweller
-Rolex 1978 16030 DJ Tiffany
-Tudor 1969 7017 Date-Day
-Tudor 1968 7021 Snowflake...incoming!!
......and the bastidz
-Blancpain 1974 Fifty Fathoms
-Breitling 1988 Navitimer

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/IMG_0718.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/IMG_0658.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/29738profile-2.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/7021-5.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/IMG_0734.jpg
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm278/davvan75/IMG_0702.jpg

Fantastic collection.:clap::clap:

The Blancpain is killer!! It's a make that often gets overlooked. So much history.:cheers::cheers:

[Davvan]

....glad you like ém. Dunno why...but I´m totaly into vintage. Right you are..the BP FF is my favourite.....:thumbsup:

[Jocke]

....glad you like ém. Dunno why...but I´m totaly into vintage. Right you are..the BP FF is my favourite.....:thumbsup:

David, did you get the problems solved with it?

Jocke

[gpateesq]

LOVE the DDs

[lobo58]

I think that TRF should be on the cutting edge of defining "vintage"

The days when you could easily say "plastic", or 25 years is quickly becoming passe'.

For example, Sapphire has been with us for over 30 years, so to exclude a "80's Gold GMT, DJ, or Day Date for that criteria might not pigeon hole it correctly..

Also, the GMT 16700, along with it's movement, has not been produced for over a decade and many are 2 decades old........when does this one become "vintage"

For Subs, the 14060 took over for the 5513 over 20 years ago, so everybody can agree that the 5513 is a vintage (but some may not be 25 years old). Yet, the 14060 has, itself, been replaced by the 14060M for over a decade...

So, I say, let's not bury our head in the sand and proscribe certain absolutes to "vintage" but help to redefine what will be the collections and vintage stable of a collector of the 21st century.......

...............:cheers:

Well said. "Vintage" is a meaningless term, really. It has meaning where wine is concerned, because some years are better than others, but where watches are concerned? It's just a euphemism for "old" and "desirable".

Dial design, landmark advances in movements, waterproofing, crowns and lugs...it all matters. Look at the watches we're seeing here. Amazing watches. Hell, "Vintage" could mean anything that has outlived the warranty.

But if any group is qualified to define what is collectible and what is crap, the group here at TRF tops the list.

[Davvan]

David, did you get the problems solved with it?

Jocke

I´m about to. The watch is being looked over by a local watch maker (Farfarsklocka) The problem has been identified....it was the crown...so it´s going to be replaced this week . The Swedish BP AD is about the get a pretty upset letter within a week or so :dummy:

[jdc]

for me on a sports model has to be plastic and matt finish, non sports pre 70's