vintage?

[plainsdrifter]

What era/year constitutes 'vintage'? Thank you. (I have a 1976 Rolex Explorer II)

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by plainsdrifter

What era/year constitutes 'vintage'? Thank you. (I have a 1976 Rolex Explorer II)

Yours, at least to me, is Vintage. As for the broader question....


https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=649781

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=527572

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=477058

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=4226538

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=94489

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=3292746

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=22706

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=1477230

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=3144255

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=3511691

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=3226311

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=982827

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=4325919

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by plainsdrifter

I have a 1976 Rolex Explorer II

You can’t post stuff like that and not include a pic... it’s just not right!!

[SN13]

The problem is those who were collecting Vintage in the late 90's have an idea of vintage in their minds that won't change...

Like Cars, even in the early 90's a 60's Car was Classic or Vintage. 50's and 60's music was OLDIES....

Now? 30 years later? The same reference time difference TODAY would be late 80's early 90's....

Antiques are similar.... in the 90's it had to be from pre-50s... (40 years+) but no one considers a 1979 anything to be an "Antique" these days...

The collectors have aged 30 years but their definitions and reference points have stayed the same.

So the stagnation of what they consider Vintage won't encroach into the 90's because those were modern up-to-date references when they began their "Vintage" collection.


Reality is that if it's out of production, it's as vintage as anything else....

Could you imagine a collector in 1999 saying "If the movement Hacks (1972) it's not vintage" You would have laughed.

That would only be 27 years old.... similar to a 1992 model now...

Or how about "30 years old"? In 1999 would have meant the Rolex Sub Date, Seadweller and Explorer ii would not be vintage...

Oh and your 6263 Daytona, Made until 1988... well that wasn't Vintage in 2007? Only 19 years out of production. You know what else is 19 years out of production? Zenith Daytonas... 2000.

The definition of "Vintage" needs to be based on Time and Production, not on artificial components like Matte dials or Acrylic Crystals....

[Sublovin]

I’ve said this Many Times here, but here is my criteria
I think vintage defines an era, not just a perpetually rolling number of years. I think vintage Rolex is a watch with plexiglass and tritium. I have watches that were made in the early 90’s....I don’t consider them vintage, they are just getting old.

[SN13]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

I’ve said this Many Times here, but here is my criteria
I think vintage defines an era, not just a perpetually rolling number of years. I think vintage Rolex is a watch with plexiglass and tritium. I have watches that were made in the early 90’s....I don’t consider them vintage, they are just getting old.

That's fine, but in 10 years, when the Early 16610's are entering 40 years of life, and Rolex is on 7 digit 1126610 models, you're still going to say "Those 16610's are too modern?

What are we going to call the 40 and 50 year old 5 digits? Old?

• Rolex Discussion
• Old Rolex Discussion
• Vintage Rolex Discussion

Serious Question

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by SN13

That's fine, but in 10 years, when the Early 16610's are entering 40 years of life, and Rolex is on 7 digit 1126610 models, you're still going to say "Those 16610's are too modern?

What are we going to call the 40 and 50 year old 5 digits? Old?

• Rolex Discussion
• Old Rolex Discussion
• Vintage Rolex Discussion

Serious Question

As I said, they are just getting old....nothing to do with being too modern. The vintage which I describe will likely continue to be the most collectible because they represent an era when the watches were actually necessary pieces of equipment. They also represent a time when people didn’t sock them away in the safe hoping they would become collectible.
Don’t get me wrong, I like my 16610, and they will likely continue to be increasingly sought after, but it just isn’t the same.

[zionsd]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

As I said, they are just getting old....nothing to do with being too modern. The vintage which I describe will likely continue to be the most collectible because they represent an era when the watches were actually necessary pieces of equipment. They also represent a time when people didn’t sock them away in the safe hoping they would become collectible.
Don’t get me wrong, I like my 16610, and they will likely continue to be increasingly sought after, but it just isn’t the same.

My 2 cents you're clueless, I agree with SN13...

[exador]

In the automotive world, a vintage car, in the narrower senses of car enthusiasts and collectors, is a car from the period of 1919 to 1930. It’s an era where the car transitioned from rarity to ubiquity.



Then we have the classic car, which is commonly an older car with enough historical interest to be collectable and worth preserving or restoring rather than scrapping. Cars 20 years and older typically fall into the classic class.



So...Vintage Rolex


Classic Rolex

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by zionsd

My 2 cents you're clueless, I agree with SN13...

Who the hell are you and why do I care about your 2 cents? Pretty bold for a person who just joined 15 days ago and has 23 posts!

[zionsd]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Who the hell are you and why do I care about your 2 cents?

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by zionsd

My 2 cents you're clueless

Was that necessary? It's simply his opinion, and just as valid as yours.

[plainsdrifter]

Originally Posted by 1675-David

You can’t post stuff like that and not include a pic... it’s just not right!!

Why do you need a picture to answer the very simple question? True, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but it takes words to make the point, and the point is that it's a 1976 Rolex Explorer II. Anyway, not to worry.

[plainsdrifter]

[QUOTE=Kingface66;9373984]Yours, at least to me, is Vintage. As for the broader question....


Thank you. But instead of providing endless links, wouldn't it have saved your time (and mine) to answer the question?

[linesiders]

[QUOTE=plainsdrifter;9376299]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Yours, at least to me, is Vintage. As for the broader question....


Thank you. But instead of providing endless links, wouldn't it have saved your time (and mine) to answer the question?

No.

Because, Danielson, you have to do part of the work. Why should someone put in the time and effort of years of collecting and just offer it up on a platter for a one post poster (though you did say please and a 70s Explorer II is a helluva Vintage watch)

Besides it may have saved him time with a crib sheet on the "what is vintage and is it in balance with my shoes" that pops up several times per month.

Seriously, welcome aboard, show pics of that fine Explorer, poke around and do some research, then ask a question or three.

[Kingface66]

[QUOTE=plainsdrifter;9376299]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Yours, at least to me, is Vintage. As for the broader question....


Thank you. But instead of providing endless links, wouldn't it have saved your time (and mine) to answer the question?

I did. I said I thought yours was vintage.

As for the “endless links”....
You asked a question that has no answer. I tried to show you that in a twofold way:

1. To give you an example of an endless, albeit fascinating, debate by posting just a fraction of how many times this question has been started in a thread.

2. To actually give you some excellent debate, discussion, and viewpoints on your very question.

Now, it seems, that reading any of them, required too much time from you.
Sorry.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by plainsdrifter

Why do you need a picture to answer the very simple question? True, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but it takes words to make the point, and the point is that it's a 1976 Rolex Explorer II. Anyway, not to worry.

You really need to work on your sense of humor and irony.
He was simply saying (in a playful way) that it’s not right to talk about and not show a picture of an awesome, classic watch. It’s just a way to get YOU to participate in the group of enthusiasts here and be a part of it. In other words, lighten up! He was just having fun with you!

[plainsdrifter]

No problem. Take it easy! good to see USAF in Sheffield!

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by plainsdrifter

No problem. Take it easy! good to see USAF in Sheffield!

That was an interesting story

[1675-David]

[Valle de Joux]

I personally consider any Rolex with an acrylic crystal to be 'vintage' nowadays.

[plainsdrifter]

Many thanks all. Anyway, it's always handy to have a guide/yardstick. After all is said and done, pre 1980 is good enough for me.

[tekno]

This does come up a lot. There should be a sticky at the top with the best “is my watch vintage” thread.

Is an IROC Z28 vintage? Ehh, not sure. I don’t think the 1992-1993 LT1 Z28 will be considered vintage anytime soon. I don’t know what year they started making those.

Think it’s more about how it was made, the watches with applied markers will discussed on this forum but they won’t be considered vintage by the majority of the collectors.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[CPRWATCH]

Vintage to me is along the lines of , 4 digits are vintage , 5 digits are classic , 6 digits are modern . There are always exceptions to these ,but you get the idea .

[Filipão]

My 1665 Great White is a 8 million from 1984.

Certainly a "vintage".

I share @Valle_de_Joux's opinion, any plexi is vintage.

[kegan]

As it turns out all Rolex are vintage
From the moment they are made


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk