ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Otis · 12 February 2007, 09:47 AM

As someone of the younger generation, the Rolex models in production at the moment are the ones that are regarded as the 'newest' models, such as the 16610 and so on, and I guess I can consider them 'my generation' of models.

Vintage runs, such as the 5513 and 16800 where never made while I was coherently interested in watches, thus I consider them 'older' and perhaps a bit more historic, and even a bit more desirable. People regard the 5513 and 16800 as classics, as important models in the history of the sports rolex - last of a generation model, and first model with sapphire crystal (respectively)

So, my long-winded train of thought is as such.... In 20 or 30 years time, will people regard any of the current line up as collectors watches?

Will the 16610 be the last sub without maxi dial (just thinking here people)?
Will the 16710 be the classic, last-of-the-aluminium bezeled GMT IIs?
Will the 16610LV be regarded as a limited run, much like the red subs?

What are your thoughts?

Prince · 12 February 2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

...So, my long-winded train of thought is as such.... In 20 or 30 years time, will people regard any of the current line up as collectors watches?...

My answer to your question would be "Yes", but I have no idea which current models would gain that status. I suppose the LV is a good candidate, as is the Anniversary GMT. We shall see...

JJ Irani · 12 February 2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

My answer to your question would be "Yes", but I have no idea which current models would gain that status. I suppose the LV is a good candidate, as is the Anniversary GMT. We shall see...

I became vintage just after they discovered Mesopotamia!!

A. Jacobs · 12 February 2007, 09:51 AM

It would be nice if the current Rolexes would achieve that status sometime in the future. I guess we'll just have to see what happens in the next 40 years..........good lord-in 40 years I'll be as old as JJ.

JJ Irani · 12 February 2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Jacobs

It would be nice if the current Rolexes would achieve that status sometime in the future. I guess we'll just have to see what happens in the next 40 years..........good lord-in 40 years I'll be as old as JJ.

Old in years, but still young at heart, tosser!!

A. Jacobs · 12 February 2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Old in years, but still young at heart, tosser!!

I guess that's what really matters, pal

Prince · 12 February 2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

I became vintage just after they discovered Mesopotamia!!

Oh no, Mr. King Tosser. You became vintage when amoebas were all that inhabited the Earth...

Otis · 12 February 2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

Oh no, Mr. King Tosser. You became vintage when amoebas were all that inhabited the Earth...

Even then he had a certain...affinity... for the wooly ones.

Now, ahem, back on topic....

I wonder nowadays in the world of carefully considered marketing and research, whether there will be any models that are unpopular now, but will become rare? Look at the oysterquartz, or the milgauss (extreme example, I know...). There is not much nowadays that people shy away from, except perhaps a certain leopard watch. But somehow, I can't see that ever being desireable...unless we do get re-colonised by monkeys

Prince · 12 February 2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

...I wonder nowadays in the world of carefully considered marketing and research, whether there will be any models that are unpopular now, but will become rare? Look at the oysterquartz, or the milgauss (extreme example, I know...). There is not much nowadays that people shy away from, except perhaps a certain leopard watch. But somehow, I can't see that ever being desireable...unless we do get re-colonised by monkeys

Probably, but it is difficult identifying them now, in the midst of their "current" status. I suspect that most, if not all, of those watches considered "collectible" now were NOT considered anything special when they were on the current list. Just MHO...

nko51 · 12 February 2007, 10:14 AM

The time period now as far as I know is 1940 to 1969, would be considered vintage.

JJ Irani · 12 February 2007, 10:16 AM

Can someone actually define "vintage"?

So would any object over 50 years old be considered as vintage....or would it have to be less in years than that?

Prince · 12 February 2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nko51

The time period now as far as I know is 1940 to 1969, would be considered vintage.

Yes, but I believe that Otis was ruminating on the "collectible" status of the current line of watches in the future, rather than merely "vintage" status. Correct me if I'm wrong, Otis...

Otis · 12 February 2007, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

Probably, but it is difficult identifying them now, in the midst of their "current" status. I suspect that most, if not all, of those watches considered "collectible" now were NOT considered anything special when they were on the current list. Just MHO...

Exactly my thoughts too

That's what I find interesting. especially now, where market research and consumer studies and all the claptrap play such a big role in product development.

mike · 12 February 2007, 10:22 AM

Otis that's a great question.

In the strictest sense of the term all will be vintage references if we use the common definition of about 25 years.

I think the question that naturally follows is which will future collectors consider desireable as collectors pieces.
Of the three I would submit the LV has the best chance for a couple reasons.

Lets not confuse "limited run"--which it is not--with short run--which it could be if the sub is revamped in a year or two with the larger case and ceramic bezel, maxi-dial etc...
I think it important watches like the 1680 RED, which ran from circa 1967 to 1973/74 as most collectors reckon the time frame was the only date sub made at the time and did not share production with a "brother" model. Even the 1655, considered a grail by many collectors had a rather long run from 71 to 85. The Milgaus another.
Granted Rolex was not making the number of watches back then, but again none shared production with a counterpart.
What all these pieces had was that "something different" that once productions ends and existing supplies find a home desirability becomes a factor.

The 16610 and 16710 perhaps a bit less so as both have had long production runs and there's a blue million examples out there. Fine vintage pieces to be sure, but rarity and desirability perhaps less so. (I'm apt to make a bit of exception with the SD. Always a bit more cultish, the SD has always had a strong following)

LOL! What I wouldn't give for a crystall ball!!

ginzo · 12 February 2007, 10:25 AM

A recent quote from Padi56:

"Well if you can get hold of a mint 14060 with the tritium dial get one. IMHO they will be the next collectable Rolex,prices are about to rise."

I looking for one.

Prince · 12 February 2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike

...LOL! What I wouldn't give for a crystall ball!!

Indeed, Mike. Money to be made there, my friend!!!

Otis · 12 February 2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike

Otis that's a great question.

In the strictest sense of the term all will be vintage references if we use the common definition of about 25 years.

I think the question that naturally follows is which will future collectors consider desireable as collectors pieces.
Of the three I would submit the LV has the best chance for a couple reasons.

Lets not confuse "limited run"--which it is not--with short run--which it could be if the sub is revamped in a year or two with the larger case and ceramic bezel, maxi-dial etc...
I think it important watches like the 1680 RED, which ran from circa 1967 to 1973/74 as most collectors reckon the time frame was the only date sub made at the time and did not share production with a "brother" model. Even the 1655, considered a grail by many collectors had a rather long run from 71 to 85. The Milgaus another.
Granted Rolex was not making the number of watches back then, but again none shared production with a counterpart.
What all these pieces had was that "something different" that once productions ends and existing supplies find a home desirability becomes a factor.

The 16610 and 16710 perhaps a bit less so as both have had long production runs and there's a blue million examples out there. Fine vintage pieces to be sure, but rarity and desirability perhaps less so. (I'm apt to make a bit of exception with the SD. Always a bit more cultish, the SD has always had a strong following)

LOL! What I wouldn't give for a crystall ball!!

Excellent, thanks Mike!

So, I guess the difference between 'limited' and 'short' run is that Limited they only choose to make, say, X thousand models, whereas a 'short' run is that they make them until they stop... which is not very long.

Good point there Mike, I guess that does play a big part in determining value down the track.

Also agree with you about the SD...it has a bit of something about it, a bit of old-school no-nonsense.

Needless to say, I can't wait to see what will happen many years down the track.

Yes, now where can I get me one of those crystal ball dealies ..?

mrbieler · 12 February 2007, 10:38 AM

A simple breakdown is acrylic vs sapphire crystal. Curious as to where the line gets drawn for the next break.

Otis · 12 February 2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

Yes, but I believe that Otis was ruminating on the "collectible" status of the current line of watches in the future, rather than merely "vintage" status. Correct me if I'm wrong, Otis...

Nope, you were right-on!
Interesting though, I know that for something to be antique, it has to be 100yrs old older, but not sure about vintage..

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbieler

A simple breakdown is acrylic vs sapphire crystal. Curious as to where the line gets drawn for the next break.

My thoughts are... for some the sports line at least... maxi dial & ceramic bezel?

padi56 · 12 February 2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ginzo

A recent quote from Padi56:

"Well if you can get hold of a mint 14060 with the tritium dial get one. IMHO they will be the next collectable Rolex,prices are about to rise."

I looking for one.

Yes IMHO that will be the next collectable Rolex sports,perhaps the 5513 of the not so distant future.And even the O/Q is starting to get collectable,especially the mark 1 models with the non chronometer dial.But would doubt if any modern day Rolex would become collectable, just to many of them around.

mrbieler · 13 February 2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

But would doubt if any modern day Rolex would become collectable, just to many of them around.

Seeing that the new models are delineated by month date codes, I think you're right.

jac67 · 13 February 2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

I became vintage just after they discovered Mesopotamia!!

JJ you're NOT vintage, but rather ANTIQUE!!!

John.

JJ Irani · 13 February 2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jac67

JJ you're NOT vintage, but rather ANTIQUE!!!

John.

astcell · 14 February 2007, 12:11 AM

To guarantee a great demand for a Rolex, when one of us gets famous we can walk around showing off our watch, and then folks will want that one. I mean a "Paul Newman" is not known for being worn by Martin Short!

12 February 2007, 09:47 AM	#1
Otis "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2006 Real Name: Urs Location: QLD AU Watch: Omega x 2 Posts: 2,046	When Current Models become 'Vintage'... As someone of the younger generation, the Rolex models in production at the moment are the ones that are regarded as the 'newest' models, such as the 16610 and so on, and I guess I can consider them 'my generation' of models. Vintage runs, such as the 5513 and 16800 where never made while I was coherently interested in watches, thus I consider them 'older' and perhaps a bit more historic, and even a bit more desirable. People regard the 5513 and 16800 as classics, as important models in the history of the sports rolex - last of a generation model, and first model with sapphire crystal (respectively) So, my long-winded train of thought is as such.... In 20 or 30 years time, will people regard any of the current line up as collectors watches? Will the 16610 be the last sub without maxi dial (just thinking here people)? Will the 16710 be the classic, last-of-the-aluminium bezeled GMT IIs? Will the 16610LV be regarded as a limited run, much like the red subs? What are your thoughts? __________________ Rock the Casbah!

12 February 2007, 09:51 AM	#4
A. Jacobs "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: Andrew Location: Ohio Watch: SS Sub Date 16610 Posts: 629	It would be nice if the current Rolexes would achieve that status sometime in the future. I guess we'll just have to see what happens in the next 40 years..........good lord-in 40 years I'll be as old as JJ. __________________ Rolex Submariner 16610 "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity."

12 February 2007, 10:16 AM	#11
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,320	Can someone actually define "vintage"? So would any object over 50 years old be considered as vintage....or would it have to be less in years than that? __________________ Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!

12 February 2007, 10:38 AM	#18
mrbieler "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Jeff Location: Lost Angeles Watch: all about acrylic Posts: 683	A simple breakdown is acrylic vs sapphire crystal. Curious as to where the line gets drawn for the next break. __________________ - Jeff Cursimus Cum Forfex

12 February 2007, 10:14 AM	#10
nko51 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Real Name: Alex Location: USA Watch: TT Blue Sub Posts: 2,542	The time period now as far as I know is 1940 to 1969, would be considered vintage.

12 February 2007, 10:22 AM	#14
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	Otis that's a great question. In the strictest sense of the term all will be vintage references if we use the common definition of about 25 years. I think the question that naturally follows is which will future collectors consider desireable as collectors pieces. Of the three I would submit the LV has the best chance for a couple reasons. Lets not confuse "limited run"--which it is not--with short run--which it could be if the sub is revamped in a year or two with the larger case and ceramic bezel, maxi-dial etc... I think it important watches like the 1680 RED, which ran from circa 1967 to 1973/74 as most collectors reckon the time frame was the only date sub made at the time and did not share production with a "brother" model. Even the 1655, considered a grail by many collectors had a rather long run from 71 to 85. The Milgaus another. Granted Rolex was not making the number of watches back then, but again none shared production with a counterpart. What all these pieces had was that "something different" that once productions ends and existing supplies find a home desirability becomes a factor. The 16610 and 16710 perhaps a bit less so as both have had long production runs and there's a blue million examples out there. Fine vintage pieces to be sure, but rarity and desirability perhaps less so. (I'm apt to make a bit of exception with the SD. Always a bit more cultish, the SD has always had a strong following) LOL! What I wouldn't give for a crystall ball!!

12 February 2007, 10:25 AM	#15
ginzo Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Real Name: Robert Location: Boston, MA Watch: GMT/1675 Exp/1016 Posts: 196	A recent quote from Padi56: "Well if you can get hold of a mint 14060 with the tritium dial get one. IMHO they will be the next collectable Rolex,prices are about to rise." I looking for one.

14 February 2007, 12:11 AM	#24
astcell "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Robert Location: Angelus Oaks, CA Watch: 116713 Posts: 6,828	To guarantee a great demand for a Rolex, when one of us gets famous we can walk around showing off our watch, and then folks will want that one. I mean a "Paul Newman" is not known for being worn by Martin Short!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)