Incoming 1675

[Pocosso]

Congrats! A Beautiful MK-2.

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by HarryFlashman

Congratulations! That is a great looking watch!

Thank you!

Originally Posted by Heu

Congrats

Originally Posted by Pocosso

Congrats! A Beautiful MK-2.

Thank you very much!

[L.K Johnson]

Welcome to the 1675 club!!! Here is my MKIV from 1977:

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by L.K Johnson

Welcome to the 1675 club!!! Here is my MKIV from 1977:

Thank you! Yours is a wonderful piece!

[L.K Johnson]

Originally Posted by Bladeshot

Thank you! Yours is a wonderful piece!

Thanks!! Really love the starchy with indexes...

[matteorolex]

congratulations
watch absolutely in order
Matteo

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by matteorolex

congratulations
watch absolutely in order
Matteo

Thank you! It’s a fun piece and I’ll really enjoy it.

[Turbo Racer]

Gorgeous watch! Enjoy!!

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by Turbo Racer

Gorgeous watch! Enjoy!!

Thank you!

[mineral]

Stunning mark ii Gmt. Love it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Yaz]

Congrats !
Love this patina !

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by mineral

Stunning mark ii Gmt. Love it

Thank you !

Originally Posted by Yaz

Congrats !
Love this patina !

Thank you!

[SS Oyster]

I’m confused!

Vintage guys get their panties in a wad over service dials, hands and case build up and recut, saying they aren’t original. Then, they send their acquisitions off to people who do the same exact things, building a matchy match watch, but NOT original. These things could have a minute hand from 1965, a dial from 1963, a second hand from 1964, an hour hand from 1966, and 24hr hand from 1967, bezel insert from 1964 and crown from 1966. Then, everyone praises them for having such an original unpolished watch, except it is an “original looking”Frankenwatch. Then, they later sell the watch on as a “fine example”.

I’m not saying this is the case with Grant’s watch, but it seems prevalent in the vintage game. Even with this watch, it was admitted to have a hand match. What does that mean? So only good looking parts swaps are acceptable? Who makes these rules. No thanks. I’ll stick with new - that’s the only way we really know it’s as it left the factory.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tekno]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I’m confused!

Vintage guys get their panties in a wad over service dials, hands and case build up and recut, saying they aren’t original. Then, they send their acquisitions off to people who do the same exact things, building a matchy match watch, but NOT original. These things could have a minute hand from 1965, a dial from 1963, a second hand from 1964, an hour hand from 1966, and 24hr hand from 1967, bezel insert from 1964 and crown from 1966. Then, everyone praises them for having such an original unpolished watch, except it is an “original looking”Frankenwatch. Then, they later sell the watch on as a “fine example”.

I’m not saying this is the case with Grant’s watch, but it seems prevalent in the vintage game. Even with this watch, it was admitted to have a hand match. What does that mean? So only good looking parts swaps are acceptable? Who makes these rules. No thanks. I’ll stick with new - that’s the only way we really know it’s as it left the factory.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is a completely period correct watch a franken? Anything 40-60 years old in close to original condition has probably had some parts replaced along the way.

Take classic cars for example. If a nice 60 year old classic car needs the bumpers rechromed, the paint redone and a engine rebuild would it be a franken car? Not if it was done in a way that maintained the original features/look.

I’m sure the hands are matched, the rest is as original or close to it. I’m sure there is a pedigree that comes with this specific watch too. Maybe your not talking about this example.

The harsh advice when someone asks an opinion of a watch they are wanting to buy is a good thing, if I would have listened to some of the guys here when buying a GMT I could have saved myself a lot of trouble.

You either like old stuff or you don’t. Vintage isn’t for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[springer]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I’m confused!

Vintage guys get their panties in a wad over service dials, hands and case build up and recut, saying they aren’t original. Then, they send their acquisitions off to people who do the same exact things, building a matchy match watch, but NOT original. These things could have a minute hand from 1965, a dial from 1963, a second hand from 1964, an hour hand from 1966, and 24hr hand from 1967, bezel insert from 1964 and crown from 1966. Then, everyone praises them for having such an original unpolished watch, except it is an “original looking”Frankenwatch. Then, they later sell the watch on as a “fine example”.

I’m not saying this is the case with Grant’s watch, but it seems prevalent in the vintage game. Even with this watch, it was admitted to have a hand match. What does that mean? So only good looking parts swaps are acceptable? Who makes these rules. No thanks. I’ll stick with new - that’s the only way we really know it’s as it left the factory.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like you have it all figured out. I agree that you should "stick with new."

[tekno]

Bladeshot,
Congrats, that is a stunning watch sir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I’m confused!

Vintage guys get their panties in a wad over service dials, hands and case build up and recut, saying they aren’t original. Then, they send their acquisitions off to people who do the same exact things, building a matchy match watch, but NOT original. These things could have a minute hand from 1965, a dial from 1963, a second hand from 1964, an hour hand from 1966, and 24hr hand from 1967, bezel insert from 1964 and crown from 1966. Then, everyone praises them for having such an original unpolished watch, except it is an “original looking”Frankenwatch. Then, they later sell the watch on as a “fine example”.

I’m not saying this is the case with Grant’s watch, but it seems prevalent in the vintage game. Even with this watch, it was admitted to have a hand match. What does that mean? So only good looking parts swaps are acceptable? Who makes these rules. No thanks. I’ll stick with new - that’s the only way we really know it’s as it left the factory.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So why even bother commenting on a thread like this one?
Please, by all means, stick with new.

[ltmgeller]

Beautiful! Congrats!

[herts9]

I just replaced the oil filter, wiper blades and steering wheel on my 78 Corvette. I guess I can sell it as new now.

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I’m confused!

Vintage guys get their panties in a wad over service dials, hands and case build up and recut, saying they aren’t original. Then, they send their acquisitions off to people who do the same exact things, building a matchy match watch, but NOT original. These things could have a minute hand from 1965, a dial from 1963, a second hand from 1964, an hour hand from 1966, and 24hr hand from 1967, bezel insert from 1964 and crown from 1966. Then, everyone praises them for having such an original unpolished watch, except it is an “original looking”Frankenwatch. Then, they later sell the watch on as a “fine example”.

I’m not saying this is the case with Grant’s watch, but it seems prevalent in the vintage game. Even with this watch, it was admitted to have a hand match. What does that mean? So only good looking parts swaps are acceptable? Who makes these rules. No thanks. I’ll stick with new - that’s the only way we really know it’s as it left the factory.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheers, Mark! So the deal on vintage, from my perspective involves having a nice, correct watch. However, after 50 years, “correct” very rarely means all original. Very few examples survive as barn finds. When they do, they are covered in DNA and grime… and hands are corroded, etc. I’ve definitely seen some crusty hands. Check these out (pic).



These were on a 1968 GMT that was so badly polished (rounded) it had to have the case recut. (Not this watch, but another one I restored and shared in a previous thread. Disclosed every aspect of that restoration and sold it.) That 1968 had a horribly relumed dial, too. That one was so bad there’s nothing to gain by leaving the watch in decrepit condition. Might as well restore it and get it back to some semblance of nice.

As for this incoming example, the hands’ tritium was damaged, would have likely fallen out on the dial and left flecks everywhere. That’s unattractive and bad for the movement, too. Keeping the hands and adding some lume that is colored somewhat to match the dial plots is preferable for me, versus having hands that are probably going to disintegrate. It’s a personal choice. No right or wrong. Just what each prefers. Having hands color matched to the dial is common practice because original, undamaged hands are almost impossible to find, and would be very frail, even if you did find some.




Vintage is not for everyone. I go through stages where I don’t want to have to “worry” about an older watch. But, as you can see, for now, I’m back in the vintage game.

Modern is awesome. But so is a classic. Cars, furniture, even clothes. The great thing about this hobby is there is something for everyone.

Originally Posted by tekno

Bladeshot,
Congrats, that is a stunning watch sir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Thank you!

Originally Posted by ltmgeller

Beautiful! Congrats!

Thanks, Mike! You’ve got a great collection!

Originally Posted by herts9

I just replaced the oil filter, wiper blades and steering wheel on my 78 Corvette. I guess I can sell it as new now.

I bet we can still tell it’s a classic!

[njc313]

Congrats! Beauty, color matched perfectly.

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by njc313

Congrats! Beauty, color matched perfectly.

Thank you! Phillip did a great job!

[Roliguy]

Congratulations

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by Roliguy

Congratulations

thank you.

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by springer

There you go. Congrats.

Changed to a brighter insert. Thanks for sourcing it, Springer!

[Bladeshot]

Huge thank you you to Mike for the amazing Fuscia. It is impossible for photos to do this Fuscia insert justice.