What is the essence of "vintage"

[alanc]

This afternoon I read a thread concerning the hunt for a replacement dial for a red 1680 Submariner, which led to another thread about Steve M and a certain matte dial Submariner he sold. . .

It got me thinking about how desirable vintage Rolexes are (as reflected in their pricing), which leads me to ask - "What is it about vintage Rolexes that make them so valuable?"

It seems that a complete example (meaning no replacement parts) of, say, a red dial Submariner, is very valuable. Yet, such watch would presumably have hands seriously corroded by the tritium paint, and a severely deteriorated dial, for the same reason. There would also presumably be loose tritium flecks floating around under the crystal. I also assume the bracelet would be worn, and the movement not in the best shape either. Yet, people will pay big bucks for this watch, notwithstanding the fact it's not really usable.

Of course, you could get replacement hands, dial and bracelet, and service the movement. Yes, but then it's not original anymore, right? The replacement parts date from 2013, so the watch is no longer completely vintage. Is it now worth less, even though it is now a much more usable watch that retains its vintage design? Let's take this to its logical conclusion - Rolex manufacturers a brand new, exact replica of a red dial Submariner - how much would you be willing to pay for that? I'm guessing much less than an original, even though the original is probably badly deteriorated. Why should this be, since the replica duplicates the classic design and is brand new to boot?

My first car was a 1963 Chevrolet Belair. Like everyone's first car, it holds a special place in my heart. A few years ago, I saw a restored example that was nearly an exact duplicate of mine, down to the same exterior and interior colors. It was quite reasonable, and I seriously thought of buying it.

I didn't - what stopped me was the realization that I wasn't trying to buy the car, I was trying to buy my past, which of course is impossible. The restored seat in that car would not be the seat that my first real girlfriend sat on, and the restored radio would not play the Hollies' "The Air That I Breathe" unless I picked an oldies station. Finally, the world beyond the windshield would not be 1972, but 2013. . .

So, getting back to the Rolex Red Sub. Replace the hands, dial and bracelet, and those parts are not the parts that completed the watch in 1970 or thereabouts - they have nothing at all to do with that time. How far can you go with replacements before it's no longer vintage? Keep it all vintage and it's not really usable, but people don't seem to care. So I guess the question is, what are buyers of vintage Rolexes really buying? History? Sentiment?

BTW, does anyone know what happened to Steve M?

[kilyung]

This may be better in the vintage section. Steve got himself banned.

[77T]

Restoration trends go through cycles - we now value untouched, unpolished and downright used-up watch exteriors. As long as the movement runs strong and it's still waterproof, the distressed look is de rigueur.



Also, some auto collectors are taking the "untouched" trend to extremes.

[joseluu]

Originally Posted by alanc

This afternoon I read a thread concerning the hunt for a replacement dial for a red 1680 Submariner, which led to another thread about Steve M and a certain matte dial Submariner he sold. . .

It got me thinking about how desirable vintage Rolexes are (as reflected in their pricing), which leads me to ask - "What is it about vintage Rolexes that make them so valuable?"

It seems that a complete example (meaning no replacement parts) of, say, a red dial Submariner, is very valuable. Yet, such watch would presumably have hands seriously corroded by the tritium paint, and a severely deteriorated dial, for the same reason. There would also presumably be loose tritium flecks floating around under the crystal. I also assume the bracelet would be worn, and the movement not in the best shape either. Yet, people will pay big bucks for this watch, notwithstanding the fact it's not really usable.

Of course, you could get replacement hands, dial and bracelet, and service the movement. Yes, but then it's not original anymore, right? The replacement parts date from 2013, so the watch is no longer completely vintage. Is it now worth less, even though it is now a much more usable watch that retains its vintage design? Let's take this to its logical conclusion - Rolex manufacturers a brand new, exact replica of a red dial Submariner - how much would you be willing to pay for that? I'm guessing much less than an original, even though the original is probably badly deteriorated. Why should this be, since the replica duplicates the classic design and is brand new to boot?

My first car was a 1963 Chevrolet Belair. Like everyone's first car, it holds a special place in my heart. A few years ago, I saw a restored example that was nearly an exact duplicate of mine, down to the same exterior and interior colors. It was quite reasonable, and I seriously thought of buying it.

I didn't - what stopped me was the realization that I wasn't trying to buy the car, I was trying to buy my past, which of course is impossible. The restored seat in that car would not be the seat that my first real girlfriend sat on, and the restored radio would not play the Hollies' "The Air That I Breathe" unless I picked an oldies station. Finally, the world beyond the windshield would not be 1972, but 2013. . .

So, getting back to the Rolex Red Sub. Replace the hands, dial and bracelet, and those parts are not the parts that completed the watch in 1970 or thereabouts - they have nothing at all to do with that time. How far can you go with replacements before it's no longer vintage? Keep it all vintage and it's not really usable, but people don't seem to care. So I guess the question is, what are buyers of vintage Rolexes really buying? History? Sentiment?

BTW, does anyone know what happened to Steve M?

I loved this one. The part on the car, I mean.

[HL65]

Keep it vintage and its really not usable?? Not exactly....Sorry. There is a difference between a well kept pristine example and a clunker. Most of us like the earlier vs. the latter. There is a lot that goes into vintage collecting and one must be well versed before diving in. Steve M has been at watch show this week with most other dealers. Cheers,

[Clay]

A vintage Rolex speaks of a time long gone by...
A time when a watch was more then just a piece of jewelry for the well-to-do...
A time when these watches were made, for a specific purpose, to be used on a daly basis, by people who got their hands dirty...
A time when quality and pride of craftsmanship meant something...
A time when things were built to last...
A time when deals were done with nothing more then a handshake...
A time, surly, we will never see again...
That's what makes a vintage Rolex so valuable...

[vintagewaferthin]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

Keep it vintage and its really not usable?? Not exactly....Sorry. There is a difference between a well kept pristine example and a clunker. Most of us like the earlier vs. the latter. There is a lot that goes into vintage collecting and one must be well versed before diving in. Steve M has been at watch show this week with most other dealers. Cheers,

I totally agree with you 100 percent. I'm still learning new things as a vintage collecter.

[mikkibarry]

I'm slowly learning as well. One of the things I'm learning is that if you're dealing with what I consider true vintage (pre 1940s), you can't just pick up the watch and start using it. You have to have it serviced. You have to make sure that all its pieces are working without grinding into each other and damaging other parts. You have to make sure that it's properly oiled and all of that stuff. And you have to take really special care of it since you can't just pop on down to the AD and buy a new one. You can't pop onto the net and buy a new part.

[pdoukas]

Since the op brought up cars........ Here's to the what the vintage hunt is all about:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...h-300-000.html

[vkychoo]

Very good points and interesting to see the various personal approaches to vintage collecting.

Personally, I prefer the vintage aesthetic rather than the cookie-cutter design seen on modern pieces of the Rolex tool watches.

Many new designs by new and established watch makers are trying to out-wow each other with highly engineered design and hyper luxury embellishments to the point that the function of telling time becomes relegated to secondary or tertiary functions.

Keeping a pulse on blogs like Watch Anish also lends a telling ear on current trends and forces that dictate future consumer wants.

All very interesting.

[alanc]

- thanks to all.

[DrLindaPhD]

I'm just an "old" soul. I love vintage cars, vintage jewelry, vintage clothing, vintage hairstyles and mostly vintage Rolex watches.

[HRV]

Originally Posted by pdoukas

Since the op brought up cars........ Here's to the what the vintage hunt is all about:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...h-300-000.html

Which highlights the fact, that don't buy watches as an investment, I wonder what Rolex you could have bought for £1500 in 1972, that would perform as well as this DB5

[alanc]

Originally Posted by Clay

A vintage Rolex speaks of a time long gone by...
A time when a watch was more then just a piece of jewelry for the well-to-do...
A time when these watches were made, for a specific purpose, to be used on a daly basis, by people who got their hands dirty...
A time when quality and pride of craftsmanship meant something...
A time when things were built to last...
A time when deals were done with nothing more then a handshake...
A time, surly, we will never see again...
That's what makes a vintage Rolex so valuable...

Very well-said and I agree 100%

[alanc]

Originally Posted by DrLindaPhD

I'm just an "old" soul. I love vintage cars, vintage jewelry, vintage clothing, vintage hairstyles and mostly vintage Rolex watches.

Me too - especially Art Deco and anything else from the twenties and thirties. As for Rolexes, I've so far purchased a previous generation Explorer and a GMT Pepsi, but I've been thinking I need to look further back for future purchases (back to the future?).

[springer]

I'm sure Steve M. will be at the World Wide Traders Show at Daytona Beach on February 10-11. He is still selling last I noticed.

As far as vintage goes, whether watches, cars or baseball cards - it isn't for everyone. My wife prefers new - and expensive!

[alanc]

Originally Posted by springer

I'm sure Steve M. will be at the World Wide Traders Show at Daytona Beach on February 10-11. He is still selling last I noticed.

As far as vintage goes, whether watches, cars or baseball cards - it isn't for everyone. My wife prefers new - and expensive!

Well, I'm glad to hear that about Steve M. - from the infamous thread, it seemed like the transaction at issue was an aberration.

[MATCH1969]

Hello,

You also need to consider that sometime, the watch you want is not existing anymore.
I was looking for a fat lady GMT 16760 and as it was produced for 5 years only (83/88), it was not possible for me to buy a brand new one.
I'm not a big fan of the new GMT and I prefered to go for an oldies as it match my taste.
I also bought a 5513, one of the latest produced as I liked the plexi glass aspect and a Sea Dweeler as I consider the Sea Dweeler Deep Sea too big for me.
However, I bought last year a very nice brand new Hulk Submariner at Rolex in Paris and i really love this watch.
Just to share my pleasure, some pictures of some units of my collection

iphone10213 009.jpg
30012013 002.jpg