Why do people find patina beautiful

[bjavor]

OK, so it seems we are not really of that different opionion after all :)

I can understand and appreciate the argument for the individualness that most of you have expressed and to learn this is exactly why I've started this thread. Thanks!

It seems to me also that maybe not all of you but definitely some of you agree in that there is a "cut off point" for charming and beautiful.

I think what got me so far always was that I've seen way too many photos with markers that (to me) had a very unpleasant shade of yellow, or one like that Certina above (sorry for continuing to beat on it) where people seemed to insist they are brilliant. And again, I acknowledge that this is a matter of taste and some may indeed find even those pretty, but as I myself could not, I was curious what other people saw in them...

But to show that there's still hope for me, I really like that photo of that SD (sorry for calling it a Sub before, I was to hasty to reply and didn't look close enough). I even saved it to my ever growing collection of Rolex photos :)

At this point though I feel like I need to say a few words in defence of new whatches as well :) Some of you claimed that the new "brand new looking" Subs look sterile and "eveyone can have one". As someone who just recently bought a 114060 I feel like I need to remark that just because it's new it still is a remarkable piece of stunning beauty. And the fact that anyone can have one does not diminish it in any way for me.
(In fact this argument is often brought up against Subs in general, and I always thougt of it as silly. Just because other people have it too it is no reason for me to not buy one just to show "how much of an individual I am". In old days I used to think everyone buys a Rolex, I'm going to buy something else. But then I got better :))

One final thought: Perhaps this entire thought in me started because even though I have plenty of new Rolex models still on my wishlist, after getting the 114060 and absolutely adoring its beautiful and elegant simplicity, I started seriously thinking about getting an 14060 next for all the usual reasons people seem to love them... This also lead me to look at some of the 1680 reds (gotta love them), where again, I encountered some that looked OK, but also some that looked (to me) absolutely terrible...

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by speedolex

Thanks! 1960 was the first year of the 1016 and I've got a late 1960 serial number so it's likely it was non-gilt. What it has is a RSC dial and hands from its last service in 1979 which have stayed remarkably bright and white, couldn't be happier.

What I want is a brand new 1016, I dream of finding the very last one made locked away in a safe somewhere with a dial and hands that have never seen the light of day because I think what Rolex has done with the current Explorer is an abomination.

I get that patina is acceptable in vintage collecting right now, doesn't mean that those of us who appreciate mint condition pieces are doing some sort of injustice to the hobby. Twas a time that great credit was given for a minty-mint vintage Rolex, akin to a proof coin from the US mint. Some of us still adhere to that side of the hobby, we think too much aging is simply a crappy example, not some special "patina" or "tropical" nonsense.

What color do you imagine the tritium would be, having been locked away and never seeing the light of day for all those years?

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by southtexas

What color do you imagine the tritium would be, having been locked away and never seeing the light of day for all those years?

Bright white, as if touched by the hand of God himself.

[jban5]

I recall reading somewhere that tritium that has not had exposure to light darkens. Is this factual?

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by jban5

I recall reading somewhere that tritium that has not had exposure to light darkens. Is this factual?

NOOOO!

Another dream ruined, smashed to pieces (joking, I love my 1960, it's got me covered).

[Frogman4me]

Great discussion guys. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and even those with strong opinions could change their minds in the future as our taste in watch collecting is always evolving.

Just to clarify, the Certina is very old. 1959-60 and this was the very first Certina Diver ever and was made for less than 2 years. This reference uses Radium and not tritium which ages differently. This is one of the rarest watches that I own and none that are known to exist have aged gracefully so I am not offended by any of the comments about the watch. Some references just did not age well so the scale of their condition is different which I think is important when evaluating a rare watch. I personally love the patina, I have never seen anything like it and it always catches my eye when I wear it. But as always to each his own. Cheers

[brandrea]

I have no idea, I just do

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by jban5

I recall reading somewhere that tritium that has not had exposure to light darkens. Is this factual?

Yes, and darkened trit can (will?) lighten up noticeably when taken out of the dark and exposed regularly to light.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cajuntiger]

a 50+ year old watch that looks perfect with clean white lume is generally a sign that parts have been replaced. Not necessarily true for every piece, but for the most part its an indication of service. These are the characteristics that make vintage appealing to most.
Personally I don't understand why you would want a vintage watch that didn't have these characteristics...otherwise you are far better off with a new watch.

[cajuntiger]

Originally Posted by Toronto Soup King

In total seriousness, you're equating knocks and dings in a watch case, plus dial deterioration - yes, I mean "getting worse" - to fine art of the sort you find in museums? And citing the Certina in u/Frogman4me's post as a stunning example of this? Museums employ professional restorers...just because dirt is old doesn't mean it's valuable.

With respect, gentlemen, I think you have taken this no-restoration idea too far. For most people flaking paint is no more acceptable on a watch dial than on the front door to their house, and missing lume on hands to the extent where you think of mediaeval diseases when seeing them, is just plain ugly. Would you drive a car with rusty wheels, calling the rust "patina"? Keep burned-out headlamps on the Jag just because they're original rather than replacing them? Broke a side mirror in the sixties, so just leave it like that for fifty years in the name of tradition? I'm glad none of you was involved with rewiring my electrical system!

I can hardly take you guys seriously when you recommend not restoring watches as in this thread - "leave it as is", when the dial's been sandpapered! Maybe it was OLD AUTHENTIC VINTAGE sandpaper though eh http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=471436

Anyway, just thought I'd give the opinion from the other side of the Great Divide.

well I don't think you understand the difference, nor would you agree if it was explained better...but a "rare" vintage car thats is 100% original and "rusty" is worth far more than one that has been updated with new parts. Thank goodness the 50 year old wiring in your home has no collectable value though, so feel free to update it :)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...maybe you can agree with that.

Honestly every time someone replaces an ugly dial like this with a new one, the value of the all original "ugly" watch just goes up. So keep on replacing those parts with new ones. :)

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by cajuntiger

a 50+ year old watch that looks perfect with clean white lume is generally a sign that parts have been replaced. Not necessarily true for every piece, but for the most part its an indication of service. These are the characteristics that make vintage appealing to most.
Personally I don't understand why you would want a vintage watch that didn't have these characteristics...otherwise you are far better off with a new watch.

As stated previously, the Explorer is my favorite watch of all time and unfortunately Rolex ruined it with a blingy dial that only a Datejust lover with an Oyster bracelet fetish could love.

What I wanted, and what I found, was a 1016 that looks brand new. Not only do I know that the dial, hands, crystal, and bracelet are all RSC replacements, I sought that out specifically. When one realizes that the watch of their dreams hasn't been made in 25 years and they want a new one, they have to take alternative measures.

Understand that I am a big vintage fan (I own 6 Rolexes, ages 11, 15, 45, 46, 56, and 60 years old respectively) and in all instances I seek out one that has little to no patina and is in as close to mint condition as possible. Some people are into ripped jeans and some aren't. "Vintage" doesn't mean "tired". It means designed and manufactured in a previous era.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by cajuntiger

well I don't think you understand the difference, nor would you agree if it was explained better...but a "rare" vintage car thats is 100% original and "rusty" is worth far more than one that has been updated with new parts. Thank goodness the 50 year old wiring in your home has no collectable value though, so feel free to update it :)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...maybe you can agree with that.

Honestly every time someone replaces an ugly dial like this with a new one, the value of the all original "ugly" watch just goes up. So keep on replacing those parts with new ones. :)

Can't speak for the other poster, but distressed leather and ripped jeans were a fad that came and went, eventually beaten wristwatches will as well. And a concern I would have is that years down the road these things don't age gracefully, there's a Bell curve in play, what looks $10,000 nicely "tropical" today might be worthless in a decade simply because the erosion goes past the point of tolerability. These things are literally decaying. Watch, the next big fad for vintage will be "restorations". Instead of "tropical" they'll call them "phoenix", aftermarket parts will be all the rage.

While ticks and pops and skips were part of the average listener's Sargent Pepper experience, I'd much prefer to play my flawless 1967 1st edition mono copy on the turntable than one that lived at the bottom of a toy bin for 50 years.

[clock]

Bjavor, take a look at the 1016 in this thread:
New 1016 *Very excited to show you guys*

Interested in your impression of the patina on this watch.

[cajuntiger]

Originally Posted by speedolex

"Vintage" doesn't mean "tired". It means designed and manufactured in a previous era.

What does "tired" mean to you? Most of my vintage watches are near perfect, but they are all original. I am just the opposite, I don't have any desire to have a vintage piece thats not vintage anymore because all the parts have been replaced, but "tired" they aren't.

The Railmaster I posted is a different story altogether...try to find a perfect one. This model used radium on the dial and hands which caused the degradation of the dial...to some this is part of the appeal. An example that is perfect with all replaced parts has zero appeal to me. But again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

=

Just to clarify, the Certina is very old. 1959-60 and this was the very first Certina Diver ever and was made for less than 2 years. This reference uses Radium and not tritium which ages differently. This is one of the rarest watches that I own and none that are known to exist have aged gracefully so I am not offended by any of the comments about the watch. Some references just did not age well so the scale of their condition is different which I think is important when evaluating a rare watch. I personally love the patina, I have never seen anything like it and it always catches my eye when I wear it. But as always to each his own. Cheers

It's a very cool watch, it's one of the few really weathered watches that I'd want to own. Like you said, it's rarity and funky design trumps it's condition. It's design looks like its from a completely different era so it wears its scars very well. Perhaps the reason I don't get all the distressed Rolex love is because those watches are still current, they're not true throwbacks in a sense.

Still can't get over your Sea Dweller though. Yowsa.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by cajuntiger

What does "tired" mean to you? Most of my vintage watches are near perfect, but they are all original. I am just the opposite, I don't have any desire to have a vintage piece thats not vintage anymore because all the parts have been replaced, but "tired" they aren't.

The Railmaster I posted is a different story altogether...try to find a perfect one. This model used radium on the dial and hands which caused the degradation of the dial...to some this is part of the appeal. An example that is perfect with all replaced parts has zero appeal to me. But again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

"Tired" means so aged and so distressed that instead of the imperfections complimenting the watch by making it more interesting the imperfections overwhelm and distract from the experience entirely. The 6150 up there may be important historically but it's crossed over into worthless, time and the elements have overtaken any vintage charm this may have had 20 years ago. It's owner should have done something to save it before it jumped off the cliff, now its too late.

Your Railmaster is a beauty, I'm an Omega fan and understand its importance. But that said, it's on the brink, another 5 or 10 years it's going to be gone, then what? Will you stand on principle and let it erode to the point of obscurity or will you properly and professionally try to restore the dial and preserve it? As a vintage aficionado, don't you have an obligation to save these examples before they wither away? As such, should I not be lauded for keeping the faith by preserving the look of the watch as it was the day it came out of the factory? Interesting philosophical dilemma.

[cajuntiger]

I already saved mine, you should have seen it when I found it...but I didn't need to replace the dial and hands to do it, nor would I want a new dial and new hands. In 10 years she will look just fine, but why are we worried about the future...we are discussing today. Throwing away an original dial or hands today and they are gone forever...why? I think you are missing the whole point here. I would never buy a vintage watch thats was totally wasted away in the first place.

[cdnwatchguy]

Originally Posted by bjavor

I've been wondering this for a while now.

Granted, I'm the type who likes new things, or more precisely things that look as close to original as possible.

I can understand why people appreciate a vintage watches, but personally my appreciation of one greatly increases the better shape it is in, the closer it looks to its original condition. (Though perhaps I just dislike the yellow/orange look on the hour markers...)

I also can see why people would _tolerate_ yellowed markers and hands on an otherwise good/desirable watch, but a lot of people seem to explicitely think that that is beautiful, which is something I haven't been able to grasp so far.

I'm curious if people can in some ways explain their reasons? Or is this purely a matter of "different strokes"?

I'm with you. While I can appreciate vintage I have no desire to own a watch that looks old and worn out.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by cajuntiger

I already saved mine, you should have seen it when I found it...but I didn't need to replace the dial and hands to do it, nor would I want a new dial and new hands.

And that's great, you did a restoration, you're happy and so its all good.

But please confirm that that's the endgame here. That all who embrace "tropical" watches realize that years down the road they're either going to helplessly witness them turning into piles of dust or wind up doing some sort of restoration. This has been discussed, yes? There is an exit strategy 10, 20 years from now when all those 5513's start peeling and flaking like this unfortunate 1016 up there, yes? So my preemptive efforts are not different than where everyone else is going to be down the road, yes? So high-fives all around, yes?

[Frogman4me]

Originally Posted by speedolex

It's a very cool watch, it's one of the few really weathered watches that I'd want to own. Like you said, it's rarity and funky design trumps it's condition. It's design looks like its from a completely different era so it wears its scars very well. Perhaps the reason I don't get all the distressed Rolex love is because those watches are still current, they're not true throwbacks in a sense.

Still can't get over your Sea Dweller though. Yowsa.

Strangely, you will find that this Certina is one of the best examples of this reference and certainly the most original. The bezel does make it appear to be more "worn" than it really is which I understand to vintage Rolex standards might be too "beat up" for some but when an example is so rare you can't simply say I will just get a better example. With a lot of vintage Rolex models, it is true, you can simply just wait for a better example or just pay top dollar for a "mint" one. But with certain references they just don't exist and sometimes to even find one is a big accomplishment on its own, especially an all original one with the original lume applied hands, bezel, and original GF bracelet. There are barely any photos of this reference online, only a couple examples are even known in the collector community. I realize this is a Rolex forum so naturally most people aren't even aware of this reference but a great design is a great design

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by cdnwatchguy

I'm with you. While I can appreciate vintage I have no desire to own a watch that looks old and worn out.

Precisely.

What I find sketchy are reputable sites that promote these run down examples as "tropical" and get people to pay big money for them. A barn find Porsche looks great in a museum, awful on a public street. If my dad wore this in Vietnam and it had great family significance I'd wear it proudly. But to seek out and buy one of these? No thanks.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

Strangely, you will find that this example is one of the best examples of this reference and certainly the most original. The bezel does make it appear to be more "worn" than it really is which I understand to vintage Rolex standards might be too "beat up" for some but when an example is so rare you can't simply say I will just get a better example. With a lot of vintage Rolex models, it is true, you can simply just wait for a better example or just pay top dollar for a "mint" one. But with certain references they just don't exist and sometimes to even find one is a big accomplishment on its own, especially an all original one with the original lume applied hands, bezel, and original GF bracelet. There are barely any photos of this reference online, only a couple examples are even known in the collector community. I realize this is a Rolex forum so naturally most people aren't even aware of this reference but a great design is a great design

Agree completely.

Tomorrow when this thread is "tropical" (ha ha) and off Page 1 and long forgotten I will remember your Certina, it's really special, highlight of my night. I want one.

While I never wear it, I own a 1960's Electro-Chron, I was into the whole electric thing a few years back with Accurtron's and Pulsar's and the like. I can appreciate a funky dial, love brands that take bold risks.

[Frogman4me]

Originally Posted by speedolex

And that's great, you did a restoration, you're happy and so its all good.

But please confirm that that's the endgame here. That all who embrace "tropical" watches realize that years down the road they're either going to helplessly witness them turning into piles of dust or wind up doing some sort of restoration. This has been discussed, yes? There is an exit strategy 10, 20 years from now when all those 5513's start peeling and flaking like this unfortunate 1016 up there, yes? So my preemptive efforts are not different than where everyone else is going to be down the road, yes? So high-fives all around, yes?

I think there is some confusion on what we are talking about in this thread. From my understanding we were talking about patina from a commonly viewed perspective. Not really considering water damaged dials that have rust, etc. Something more like the lume plots and hands changing colors. But to clarify there are some true, perfectly well preserved tropical watches out there. The photos shown are extreme examples and I don't think anyone here is saying these are awesome and we prefer them this way.

As far as this whole restoration thing, its an extreme exaggeration to say that these will turn to dust. The reason most of these end up like the photos above is because they were subjected to harsh conditions and poorly maintained. We simply just don't use them like this anymore. Most collectors don't even go in the water with their vintage watches so the likelihood of this kind of damage or continued damage is farfetched. I believe a watch with simple common sense maintenance will continue to look the same for decades to come

[Frogman4me]

Originally Posted by speedolex

While I never wear it, I own a 1960's Electro-Chron, I was into the whole electric thing a few years back with Accurtron's and Pulsar's and the like. I can appreciate a funky dial, love brands that take bold risks.

These are great! I got a few of these in storage somewhere. I got to see Mayor Giuliani's "New York Yankees" one in person. Super cool lightening bolts

[cajuntiger]

Which LEGIT dealer is promoting a water damaged watch as tropical?

A fool and his money will soon part...if you don't know what a tropical dial is, then shame on you. Let the fools be foolish. Personally I don't know any collectors that buy damaged watches...vintage doesn't mean damaged, it means its at least 25 years old. A watch that is 25 years old, yet has a new dial and new hands is no longer truely vintage imo...ymmv

[cajuntiger]

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

I think there is some confusion on what we are talking about in this thread. From my understanding we were talking about patina from a commonly viewed perspective. Not really considering water damaged dials that have rust, etc. Something more like the lume plots and hands changing colors. But to clarify there are some true, perfectly well preserved tropical watches out there. The photos shown are extreme examples and I don't think anyone here is saying these are awesome and we prefer them this way.

As far as this whole restoration thing, its an extreme exaggeration to say that these will turn to dust. The reason most of these end up like the photos above is because they were subjected to harsh conditions and poorly maintained. We simply just don't use them like this anymore. Most collectors don't even go in the water with their vintage watches so the likelihood of this kind of damage or continued damage is farfetched. I believe a watch with simple common sense maintenance will continue to look the same for decades to come

exactly.
not sure how this thread derailed into damaged watches and all your vintage dials will soon turn to dust.

[ILuvSubs]

This is a great thread OP. Thanks for starting the debate.

I own both new and vintage, and can appreciate both sides of the argument. I think the analogy to cars is a good one.

I love the comfort, solidity and technology that goes into a new Rolex (e.g., glidelock, solid link bracelets, ceramic bezels, etc.).

Today I happened to drop by a watch shop and held in my hands a 1977-78 1680 white Sub. It was the first time I'd held a watch that was relatively "old". I just loved the look of the blue-grey faded bezel, the top hat plexi crystal and the slight yellowing of the hour markers.

It looked quite unique and stood out amongst all the more recent GMTs, Daytonas, etc. in the shop window. However, I'd also draw the line at "tropical" dials and would only try and get the best condition I could for the price.

Thanks to Frogman4me and Speedolex for sharing some beautiful examples!

[cajuntiger]

50 years from now I'll be gone, but these will look as good as they do today.

[ILuvSubs]

Wow! Amazing photos and a fantastic collection

[acf321]

Here ye Speedo, and some other great thoughts on this.

For me, Patina is like an old bottle of wine. It's the history that drags me in. When I look at the face of a genuinely old watch (or anything) it makes me nostalgic and I wonder who else has seen it, and how their lives turned out, and ultimately ended over time.

I bought a 5500 Explorer recently that some of you might have seen my post from. When it arrived, I knew it had a newly painted dial which I could handle at first. It was only when I sat with a friend who was wearing his original 1958 Explorer with faded hands and dial that I literally turned green and 'hated' my watch from that moment. I sent the watch back and got a refund.

Since then, I have bought a lovely one owner 1980 1016, which has very slight browning of the dial and creamy markers and hands. It's original with papers and is neither 'worn out' or 'beaten up', jut nicely aged. I feel like the watch has a lot of life left in it yet, and I hope to pass it onto my Son some day. The thing I love about this watch is the fact that it has a genuine story to tell, that someone was wearing it when the Berlin Wall fell, as well as every other event in the last 36 years. That is something that all the money in the world can't buy, and to me is the underlying attraction of an older watch, and ultimately Patina.

just my two bob's worth anyway.