New vs old models.

[Laager]

Can anyone explain what the attraction of old models is? No, really. Take the Sea-Dweller as an example.

Why should a person prefer an original 1665 Sea-Dweller over the current 16600? Heck, the 1665 is terrible in comparison. Acrylic crystal that scratches easily; rattly bracelet; horrible slow set date (what a pain that is); non ratcheting bezel; genuine service life about to expire; etc. For those people with a DR then it's even worse - they can't even get a new replacement DR dial from Rolex - only a new white one.

The 16600 is miles ahead of the 1665 in both technology and parts availability. Why would you want to spend more money on a 1665 (white or DR) than you would if you bought a 16600 new from a dealer with full warranty?

[Laager]

Hmm. I guess that the vintage loving crowd can't come up with a single rational reason.

[Mark]

I myself perfer modern technology. The new style today is unmatchable. This is not only true with watches, but cars, motorcycles and ofcourse the modern women.

However, if money was no object I'd love to have a collection of fine vintage watches.

[Laager]

I can appreciate old technology and design. I just don't see the point in spending more than a new one for it.

I'd like a Milguass but not because all the crazy speculators and collectors think it's rare and 'special'. I couldn't give a toss about that malarky. I'd like one for the antimagnetic movement. My own watch regularly gets magnetised and a Milgauss wouldn't suffer the same problem. That's it. No other reason. However, there's no way known I would ever spend the ridiculous amount of money required to buy one at today's inflated prices. The things cost less than a Submariner when they were sold. Damned if I'm going to pay $20K+ for one. That's idiotic.

[molex]

Originally Posted by Laager

Hmm. I guess that the vintage loving crowd can't come up with a single rational reason.

You are a sassy kitty, aren't you?

It's very simple really: Not everyone is interested in the latest, greatest technology or iterations. Many people prefer things that've been around for a while, that have some class and style. Just because something is "new and improved" doesn't mean that it is automatically better in every way.

Look at it this way: I own a brand new 16200 Datejust and a 32 year old 1601 Datejust. One of the things I love about Rolex is their long history in the watch world. Now with the 16200, I am wearing the culmination of that history, very nice. But with the 1601 I am wearing an actual piece of that history. To me, that is something that's nearly invaluable. NO new watch can have that, not ONE. A new watch is only one thing: A new watch. A vintage watch is many things: A part of the companies history, a part of horological history, an important link in a long line of evolution, a physical entity with lots of stories it can tell, a wonderful reminder of how things used to be, a link to our past, an actual hand-crafted watch that a human being made piece by piece, and at best it's a scrying glass that can be used to see back in time and know what things were like and, with our modern knowledge, where they were headed back in the day when people couldn't even comprehend the idea of a mechanized factory grinding their sapphire crystals and balance bridges out by the thousands per day.

In fact, now that I think of it a little more carefully, it seems to me that a slavish dedication to the newest and "best" technology and models is about the shallowest pursuit an genuine afficianado of timepieces can engage in.

[BRUCE14060]

Hi Micah..

Nice to see you over on this one how do you divide your time up?. Anyway good to see some friendly!! familiar posters

Bruce

[molex]

Originally Posted by BRUCE14060

Hi Micah..

Nice to see you over on this one how do you divide your time up?. Anyway good to see some friendly!! familiar posters

Bruce

Happy to be here, clearly this forum needs a few more people involved so as to drown out the white noise of idiocy that's already (unfortunately) materialized.

In the evenings my wife watches TV, which I personally dislike, so I relax by hitting whichever forums seem to be having the most fun. Hope this one gets interesting!

[thesharkman]

hrrrmmmm.....i'll give you a few reasons:

1) the matte dial w/o the white gold surrounds looks WAY better than the
new glossy dial (i have a 16610LV - so i am qualified to make a
comparison);

2) the acrylic crystals, besides looking better, are lighter and less expensive
to replace. i've never had the scratching problem that you mention; so,
you must be a brute w/ watches. i haven't even mentioned the glare
issue that the sapphire crystals present;

3) as molex stated, vintage watches have a great history and w/ servicing
look and operate just as well as their newer counterparts. put it this
i dont think any of the COMEX divers had any issues w/ their 1665s =)

< shark >>><

[Laager]

Originally Posted by molex

Happy to be here, clearly this forum needs a few more people involved so as to drown out the white noise of idiocy that's already (unfortunately) materialized.

Pardon?

You walk in the door and claim that because people don't agree with your views that there's idiocy here?

Keep walking.

[Laager]

Originally Posted by molex

In fact, now that I think of it a little more carefully, it seems to me that a slavish dedication to the newest and "best" technology and models is about the shallowest pursuit an genuine afficianado of timepieces can engage in.

A slavish dedication to the newest and best technology by manufacturers is what has generated the items on your wrist that you adore. You would be using a sundial otherwise.

One of the things I love about Rolex is their long history in the watch world. Now with the 16200, I am wearing the culmination of that history, very nice. But with the 1601 I am wearing an actual piece of that history.

Specious, at best. The culmination of the history is also a piece of the history; the latest piece.

A new watch is only one thing: A new watch. A vintage watch is many things: A part of the companies history, a part of horological history, an important link in a long line of evolution

A new watch isn't all those things? You really need to research the concepts of logic and deduction.

...a physical entity with lots of stories it can tell, a wonderful reminder of how things used to be, a link to our past, an actual hand-crafted watch that a human being made piece by piece

Pardon? The 1601 you love is a machine made item just like the 16200.

...and at best it's a scrying glass that can be used to see back in time and know what things were like and, with our modern knowledge, where they were headed

True. An obsolete item with inferior technology. A curiosity in history. For some, such curiosities are valuable.

back in the day when people couldn't even comprehend the idea of a mechanized factory grinding their sapphire crystals and balance bridges out by the thousands per day

But you're a Rolex evangelist. Rolex has always been about quality in volume (now mass) production. How do you support your definition of afficionado when all you have is an evangelical passion for Rolex? Your definition of afficionado includes an implication that only 18th century and earlier pieces are worthy of an afficionado's attention.

[Laager]

Originally Posted by thesharkman

the matte dial w/o the white gold surrounds looks WAY better than the new glossy dial (i have a 16610LV - so i am qualified to make a comparison)

That's not a reason. That's a personal preference. For every person claiming the matte dial looks better I'm sure one could put a matte and glossy dial side by side; pluck people off the street and ask them which they preferred and find ten to one prefer the gloss dial. If the matte dial had such better aesthetics then it would still be in use. Rolex aren't stupid. A stack of market research goes into their commercial decisions.

the acrylic crystals, besides looking better

Again, a personal preference, not a reason.

...are lighter and less expensive to replace.

True

...i've never had the scratching problem that you mention; so, you must be a brute w/ watches.

No, I simply don't treat them like they are irreplaceable.

...as molex stated, vintage watches have a great history and w/ servicing

With servicing. Try and get genuine parts for a 30+ year old Rolex. Happy hunting. Try and get Rolex to service a 40+ year old model. Good luck. Hardly worth the effort.

...look and operate just as well as their newer counterparts.

Not as far as Rolex is concerned. It's why they improve the movement. It's why they improve the case. It's why they improve the bracelet. The public seems to support Rolex's view as they keep buying the product.

put it this i dont think any of the COMEX divers had any issues w/ their 1665s =)

With the servicing regimen the Comex watches were subjected to, the divers hardly had a chance to experience a problem. That's the whole point of the accelerated servicing.

Oh, have a peek here.

[Warped]

Originally Posted by molex

Happy to be here, clearly this forum needs a few more people involved so as to drown out the white noise of idiocy that's already (unfortunately) materialized.

In the evenings my wife watches TV, which I personally dislike, so I relax by hitting whichever forums seem to be having the most fun. Hope this one gets interesting!

It certainly has, under the guidance of JJ.

JJ, looks like you need to get Zemina a TV?

http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=37188

[Trurolexer]

Because the 1665 is vintage collection, already discountinued for a long time. And it's really hard to find one. And they look MORE beautiful than the new model.

[fear]

Originally Posted by molex

You are a sassy kitty, aren't you?

It's very simple really: Not everyone is interested in the latest, greatest technology or iterations. Many people prefer things that've been around for a while, that have some class and style. Just because something is "new and improved" doesn't mean that it is automatically better in every way.

Look at it this way: I own a brand new 16200 Datejust and a 32 year old 1601 Datejust. One of the things I love about Rolex is their long history in the watch world. Now with the 16200, I am wearing the culmination of that history, very nice. But with the 1601 I am wearing an actual piece of that history. To me, that is something that's nearly invaluable. NO new watch can have that, not ONE. A new watch is only one thing: A new watch. A vintage watch is many things: A part of the companies history, a part of horological history, an important link in a long line of evolution, a physical entity with lots of stories it can tell, a wonderful reminder of how things used to be, a link to our past, an actual hand-crafted watch that a human being made piece by piece, and at best it's a scrying glass that can be used to see back in time and know what things were like and, with our modern knowledge, where they were headed back in the day when people couldn't even comprehend the idea of a mechanized factory grinding their sapphire crystals and balance bridges out by the thousands per day.

In fact, now that I think of it a little more carefully, it seems to me that a slavish dedication to the newest and "best" technology and models is about the shallowest pursuit an genuine afficianado of timepieces can engage in.

Beautiful argument!

[fear]

It's all subjective ain't it. Vintage collectors are intrinsically motivated to like vintage models. The reasons can be many or few. What's wrong with that? I'm sure that vintage collectors also have modern models too. Nobody's living in the 18th Century. It's a hobby.

No one needs to collect vintage Rolex, cars, stamps, guns, coins. But people just do. I'd say enthusiast, evangelists make the world a much more interesting place.

Don't rain on someone's parade just because they have different interests. It's not like collecting vintage watches are illegal or immoral.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Laager

Can anyone explain what the attraction of old models is? No, really. Take the Sea-Dweller as an example.

Why should a person prefer an original 1665 Sea-Dweller over the current 16600? Heck, the 1665 is terrible in comparison. Acrylic crystal that scratches easily; rattly bracelet; horrible slow set date (what a pain that is); non ratcheting bezel; genuine service life about to expire; etc. For those people with a DR then it's even worse - they can't even get a new replacement DR dial from Rolex - only a new white one.

The 16600 is miles ahead of the 1665 in both technology and parts availability. Why would you want to spend more money on a 1665 (white or DR) than you would if you bought a 16600 new from a dealer with full warranty?

Well if you got to ask why, then any explanation I would doubt would satisfy but each to there own.The SD was the first production watch to have the SEL bracelet so did not like you say rattle.And the bezel most certainly did ratchet,on all production SD watches.And why would anyone want to change a red dial for a white modern dial, you would have lost all the value of the original Red.There are still plenty of parts world wide for the 15XX movements and IMHO the 15XX series the finest Rolex has ever made.Acrylic crystal yes they do scratch but very very easy to polish out,while scratch on Sapphire very difficult to polish.And to change the date in reality take only seconds to do.And can assure no modern day Rolex made after say 1989 except for say the Zenith Daytona and perhaps non date sub tritium dial, and the modern Milgauss. Will ever be as valuable as say a single double Red Sub or SD hope this answers your question.

[Stratton]

I like the old and the new ones. Padi, the 1665 didn't have the SEL or ratcheting bezel which were introduced on the 16660.

[mickeydainish]

Wow... massive bump on this thread! I love the classic models.... I think you really have to know your classic/vintage watches not to get caught out.... It is easy for us newbies to buy a model off the shelf..... One day though...?? :-)

[Lol-x]

This thread is 3.5 years old.

I agree with Peter and when you look at a watch like this, what is not to like:

[TARDIS]

Originally Posted by Laager

A slavish dedication to the newest and best technology by manufacturers is what has generated the items on your wrist that you adore. You would be using a sundial otherwise.Specious, at best. The culmination of the history is also a piece of the history; the latest piece.A new watch isn't all those things? You really need to research the concepts of logic and deduction.Pardon? The 1601 you love is a machine made item just like the 16200.True. An obsolete item with inferior technology. A curiosity in history. For some, such curiosities are valuable.But you're a Rolex evangelist. Rolex has always been about quality in volume (now mass) production. How do you support your definition of afficionado when all you have is an evangelical passion for Rolex? Your definition of afficionado includes an implication that only 18th century and earlier pieces are worthy of an afficionado's attention.

I hope you aren't driving home

Cheers
Steve

[el-piloto]

Originally Posted by Laager

Can anyone explain what the attraction of old models is? No, really. Take the Sea-Dweller as an example.

Why should a person prefer an original 1665 Sea-Dweller over the current 16600? Heck, the 1665 is terrible in comparison. Acrylic crystal that scratches easily; rattly bracelet; horrible slow set date (...)

-answer:

In one word: VINTAGE!!!

Because of the same reason I'd prefer a type-rating on a wonderful
Boeing 707 over anything that has LCDs & puters in its cockpit!!!

Yes, the 707 had rudder tabs that used aerodynamic forces for assistance,
thus requiring to put muscles to work up front (read=the acrylic crystal
scratches easily, slow setting date... for example), but you know what?
You could land that bird safely with 1/3 of its wing panel missing if you
just had the right skills... the bird would allow you to really FLY it!!!!!!!
Try that with FBW (fly-by-wire)...

Originally Posted by Laager

The 16600 is miles ahead of the 1665 in both technology and parts availability. (...)

Yes, true. And an Airbus A340 is miles ahead of the 707 for example... but
the 707 was and still is a (pilot's) aircraft!!!! The 340 is a technological
marvel (or the up-coming 787 or anything that has been out there in the
last 30 years), but try calling it an AIRPLANE!!!!

Like I warned above... just a few -cts...!!!

[MrCowboy99]

Originally Posted by mickeydainish

Wow... massive bump on this thread!

So is this called a vintage thread?

[funlab]

Originally Posted by Laager

Hmm. I guess that the vintage loving crowd can't come up with a single rational reason.

wow - you didn't get a single reply in six hours and then you put this out there? take a deep breath.... now, let it out.... deep breath.... let it out....

what's the difference between a '57 corvette and a '08 zr6? what's the difference between frank lloyd wright and helmet jahn? what's the difference between a romanee conti and a present day pinot?

it seems like you came here looking for a fight for some reason. there is no "right" answer to your question. the character, patina and "story" of a vintage watch is more desirable by some the a tight bracelet with no scratches and the latest blue parachrom doodads with a sapphire crystal.

to each his own. i happen to have a collection now that's based only in the modern pieces. i'm currently on the hunt for vintage pieces because it will add depth to my collection and also what i consider a feeling of warmth. the 1680 red subs are absolutely charming and the 1675 acrylics are great too. if these vintage watches could tell stories, think of what they would be. i can't wait to find a red 1680 that talks to me.

on another vintage forum, some guy just posted the entire history of a sub he picked up that included pictures and documentation from the original owner. it was truly fascinating to see the life of that watch.

[timackerman]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

This thread is 3.5 years old.

I agree with Peter and when you look at a watch like this, what is not to like:

I agree

There is something about vintage watches that appeal to some, and not to others.

I say, to each his own

[mdx77]

Holly crap this thread is old.........

[bewithabob]

I like the new ones better than the old ones. Unless the old one is a meteorite, and then i would like the old one. But if the new one is a meteorite, and the old one isn't, then I would pick the new one. In which case, I would have to take another look. Deciding without looking, makes you decide again after looking, so goes the old saying look before you leap, if you want to ...... what was I saying? Was I talking about the Meteorite again?

When in doubt, always pick the meteorite.

[bewithabob]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

This thread is 3.5 years old.

I agree with Peter and when you look at a watch like this, what is not to like:

well, its not a meteorite....

[DJF881]

The older watches had lower initial productions and many have been destroyed, damaged or modified from factory spec over time. So an all-original watch in good condition is a rare commodity, and the ability to obtain something rare is a status symbol.

That said, most of the really rare or valuable watches don't get worn, and are in the collections of very wealthy or very fanatical watch enthusiasts.

"Vintage" in most contexts is a euphemism for models that are no longer manufactured because it sounds better than "used" or "secondhand," but it isn't entirely appropriate, because, unlike wine, watches degrade rather than improve with age.

[gwozhog]

This thread has 3 of the first five TRF members on it. Looks like laager, molex, and mark have not been around for some time. I wander if they know how big TRF is now!

[dcash0615]

All three of those members have had activity since 2010.

Originally Posted by gwozhog

This thread has 3 of the first five TRF members on it. Looks like laager, molex, and mark have not been around for some time. I wander if they know how big TRF is now!