Do birth year watches even matter?

[SconnieBT]

I bought my first Rolex about 4 months ago. A 16570 Z serial Polar explorer 2 at the age of 30. As much joy as this watch gives me, I'm always on the lookout for which watch should come next. I have always had a dream of buying a birth year watch, and as i just turned 31, 1987 is the year i'm after.

The funny thing is, when i think of buying a birth year watch, the only brand that i even consider is Rolex. First off, why is that? Has Rolex's giant marketing budget somehow poisoned my mind? Second off, i hate the limitations that puts on me. Because basically that commits me to a Submariner, Datejust or GMT Master. I exclude the Daytona and Explorer because of price point first and foremost, and secondly i have a 36mm Omega Railmaster that i absolutely love and will never leave my collection, so the explorer (although i love the 1016) is too similar.

So i have this image of a 1987 Rolex on my wrist, but with the current vintage Rolex market getting out of control, I wonder if this is worth it?? Now i understand that 1987 isn't exactly vintage, but prices are only creeping north. It makes me think if finding another watch from 1987 from a different brand would be more logical? Or should I toss the birth year watch idea aside and buy something modern that i just love? As watch enthusiasts, i feel we have a tendency to overthink these things.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. What other 1987 watch alternatives can you give me? Talk me into or out of the birth year watch.

[JacksonStone]

It only matters if you think it does. Since it's your birth year, that won't affect collectability to anyone else, except those who were born the same year who themselves are interested in a birth-year watch. However, if it's something you really want, then that's what matters.

[Etschell]

Not to me. I like new not vintage watches.

[ocwatching]

I prefer to make my own history with a new piece...
I am just not attracted to the vintage models with lighter bracelets...and various maintenance issues...

I do get that some people like them..different strokes for different folks...

only you can decide...

[s.m.b.]

I prefer new over vintage as well. That said, if I were to buy vintage, I think I could get behind a birth year watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Speed]

No

[Maiden]

Not to me. Why would I buy an old watch, which is one of thousands produced, with someone else’s history? What’s special about that?It’s not like I was the only person born that year either. Anyhow to each their own. If you think it’s cool nothing wrong with that. My opinion only.

[steeevvvooo]

I bought a 116600 with papers dated 2017... the year my son was born. I plan to make my own stories with that as I can’t justify a 1982 Daytona :) one day he might receive the watch but I’m not planning on giving it up for a loooong time...

That said I am sorely tempted by a birth year watch for myself at some point too.

[huncho]

i could get behind getting something like a day date from the 80s. otherwise new > vintage

[HogwldFLTR]

Only if they are significant for other reason. I was born in '52 and nothing significant was introduced that year. '53 saw the Submariner first introduced iirc.

[tmmii]

Born in 87 also and no desire to own a sub that old from who knows how many owners. My month old will be with me for all of my stories from its day one. (Jaysus my shrink would love to hear that whentalking about narcissism 😂)

[zaratsu]

I won't hold back. I think the birth year watch is just another reason for somebody to buy an old and (more than likely) overpriced watch.
Putting sentimental value into a watch with someone else's history and paying through the nose for the privilege just seems absurd to me.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[marcotagudelo]

I liked the idea but it gets finiki with vintage

[steeevvvooo]

Originally Posted by marcotagudelo

I liked the idea but it gets finiki with vintage

This is what has put me off so far... as well as the overpriced sentimental part

[Golf11]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Only if they are significant for other reason. I was born in '52 and nothing significant was introduced that year. '53 saw the Submariner first introduced iirc.

'53 saw the Explorer released -- the year after it ascended Everest -- Elizabeth II coronation was in June of 53 as well. I'd say those are two big things!

[Chadridv]

I'd personally toss the idea aside from a modern piece that you'd love just as much if not more. (Definitely do that if you love a modern watch more).

That said, a 1987 Pepsi GMT would be pretty cool.

[SconnieBT]

I'm a 6.5 inch wrist guy, and the modern piece I'm considering is the Tudor BB58. It would be the only dive watch in my collection (vs the gmt which I already have the gmt function on my Explorer2) and the size just sings to a modest wrist guy like myself.

Originally Posted by Chadridv

I'd personally toss the idea aside from a modern piece that you'd love just as much if not more. (Definitely do that if you love a modern watch more).

That said, a 1987 Pepsi GMT would be pretty cool.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[exador]

An ‘87 birth year watch is cheap, cheap, cheap!

Try being born in ‘62

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Golf11

'53 saw the Explorer released -- the year after it ascended Everest -- Elizabeth II coronation was in June of 53 as well. I'd say those are two big things!

Explorer didn't ascend Everest, the OP did. Hillary reached the summit in May, '53.

[mistercoach32]

Sounds juvenile and simple, but my opinion is it matters to those who have interest in them. That's it. If it doesn't matter, then pass. I'd recommend not getting one if you need to be talked into it. I understand the nostalgia aspect of wanting a birth year Sub or whichever make/model I choose, but I could also see that nostalgia wearing off real quick. Not my thing. The '71 Rolex I'd like is around $25k, but there are many other watches I'd rather have than that '71 just to have a birth year watch. Shoot, I'd rather have a '51 chop top merc with ghost flames or a '77 Trans Am than that '71. Just me though.

[SconnieBT]

The world of relativity. Haha. But by that measure, you shoulda bought your 62 in the early 90s. Lol.

Originally Posted by exador

An ‘87 birth year watch is cheap, cheap, cheap!

Try being born in ‘62

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[WatchingLA]

Originally Posted by SconnieBT

I bought my first Rolex about 4 months ago. A 16570 Z serial Polar explorer 2 at the age of 30. As much joy as this watch gives me, I'm always on the lookout for which watch should come next. I have always had a dream of buying a birth year watch, and as i just turned 31, 1987 is the year i'm after.



The funny thing is, when i think of buying a birth year watch, the only brand that i even consider is Rolex. First off, why is that? Has Rolex's giant marketing budget somehow poisoned my mind? Second off, i hate the limitations that puts on me. Because basically that commits me to a Submariner, Datejust or GMT Master. I exclude the Daytona and Explorer because of price point first and foremost, and secondly i have a 36mm Omega Railmaster that i absolutely love and will never leave my collection, so the explorer (although i love the 1016) is too similar.



So i have this image of a 1987 Rolex on my wrist, but with the current vintage Rolex market getting out of control, I wonder if this is worth it?? Now i understand that 1987 isn't exactly vintage, but prices are only creeping north. It makes me think if finding another watch from 1987 from a different brand would be more logical? Or should I toss the birth year watch idea aside and buy something modern that i just love? As watch enthusiasts, i feel we have a tendency to overthink these things.



I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. What other 1987 watch alternatives can you give me? Talk me into or out of the birth year watch.

I go back and forth on if a birth year is cool or more. And as a Rolex would essentially it would be a DJ I agree. But I’m curious why you think it has to be Rolex?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vvillie]

My son will be born next year and I plan to get a watch to commemorate the occasion. One day It will be his ‘ birth year watch’ to commemorate a major milestone in his life.

[mistercoach32]

Originally Posted by Vvillie

My son will be born next year and I plan to get a watch to commemorate the occasion. One day It will be his ‘ birth year watch’ to commemorate a major milestone in his life.

Now that's cool. That's something I could see doing. Well done.

[Chewbacca]

I think they’re cool.

Even though the ages are approximations.

[SconnieBT]

This is another concern.... The serial numbers only give you an idea of the year... Do you go off the warrant paper? You can't ever know 100%

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

I think they’re cool.

Even though the ages are approximations.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[opaline460]

Silly idea

[brandrea]

I loved the idea of owning a birth year watch. Then I realized in my case it meant tying up a lot of funds in something that always felt a bit like wearing a museum piece.

Instead, I decided to buy modern and celebrate my birth year 67 with the anniversary SD43. I’m much happier wearing it than the 67 5513.

[shaunylw]

I’m a fan of the birthyear Rolex. I was born in 86 and haven’t quite found what i am after yet. I imagine it will be a sub but i haven’t looked too hard yet. I will buy it within the next year or two. Vintage prices move very quickly, it would be a shame to get in a position where the purchase doesn’t make sense financially.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GradyPhilpott]

I like vintage, but I'm not in a hurry to acquire a 1949 Rolex.

I have watches older than that and watches that were produced in that era, but I can't date any of them that accurately.

In fact, no one can. The best you can do is to get one that has a serial number in a range that suggests that it could have been assembled in that year--approximately.

Factor all the variables together and you get a goal that is not all that worthy of my efforts.