1991 Submariner vintage?

[oysterquartz17000]

Hi, I just got my old 1991 Rolex Submariner 16610 back from a pretty major service. Its running beautifully again! Would this be considered vintage? The dial markers have gained some patina but the hands (which are the originals) have always remained lighter.

[Andad]

The Antique Automobile Club of America defines classic automobiles as vehicles that are older than 25 years old.

I guess this could also work for watches?

[oysterquartz17000]

Originally Posted by directioneng

The Antique Automobile Club of America defines classic automobiles as vehicles that are older than 25 years old.

I guess this could also work for watches?

Thanks. This was bought in April 1992 in Adelaide, I still have the receipt, plus all the papers etc. That was a long time ago now. I just see people with 16800's from only a few years earlier and they are considered vintage now for sure. I just wonder when my old watch will join the club.

[Sublovin]

I have the same watch, and in my mind it is not vintage. It’s getting old, but to me vintage is from the plexi crystal era. Fun watch

[CPRWATCH]

I wouldn't class it as vintage , its more of a classic reference . But still a lovely example of a classic reference .

[strafer_kid]

At 28 years of age, it must be getting close to vintage but it all probably just comes down to interpretation?

[SubMarine]

Vintage, but polished

[Old Expat Beast]

It is if you want it to be. There's no official arbiter.

[Glosstritium]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

Vintage, but polished

Before the rolex craze majority of watches were polished when people serviced it and didnt think anything of it to the point they all look like datejust lugs.. Majority of all watches easily lost its chamfer and nobody cared. Today the mind frame is not the enjoyment of watches but the value and now everybody wants New Old Stock... I rather have a shitty polished watch that slightly lost its chamfers that shows love then a newly refinished case that lost all its history...

And regarding this watch i call it a classic cause its a 904L steel and not 316L,No holes case,No open 6 and 9s so alot of the vintage charm is gone but otherwise nice patina and a great looking classic with character that i respect

[brockburst]

Generally considered not vintage....in some circles its 30 years, in others its certain hallmarks.

I would probably call your 91 sub 'classic'

I would call an 81 matte dial 'vintage'

[Richard Carver]

I love my 1991 EXII but vintage, it's not.

[faimag]

Nice watch. There is no definition of "vintage" for watches, but most people would think 4-digits.

On a sidenote, I am surprised to see how common it is for the early 1990s Rolex watches to have much more patina on the hour markers than on the hands. I have seen it again and again in many examples (Subs, GMTs, ExpII) and obviously, I am not referring to those where the hands were replaced. Seems Rolex during that time sourced tritium dials and hands from different suppliers that used different batches, leading to different rates of patina development.

See examples here: https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=97366

[1665fan]

Matte dial is vintage...gold surrounds not really

[Glosstritium]

Originally Posted by 1665fan

Matte dial is vintage...gold surrounds not really

It will be in the next 5 to 15 years since gold surrounds started 35 years ago

[Racer X]

Discussed many times. Depends on the individual. For me, it needs plexiglass to be "vintage." Other factors include tritium, matte dial, open lug holes, deep chamfers, 4-digit ref numbers, etc.

[CPRWATCH]

Originally Posted by brockburst

Generally considered not vintage....in some circles its 30 years, in others its certain hallmarks.

I would probably call your 91 sub 'classic'

I would call an 81 matte dial 'vintage'

You mean 'Vintage' like my 81 matte dial

[Paulie 50]

Originally Posted by Racer X

Discussed many times. Depends on the individual. For me, it needs plexiglass to be "vintage." Other factors include tritium, matte dial, open lug holes, deep chamfers, 4-digit ref numbers, etc.

x2

[oysterquartz17000]

Originally Posted by faimag

Nice watch. There is no definition of "vintage" for watches, but most people would think 4-digits.

On a sidenote, I am surprised to see how common it is for the early 1990s Rolex watches to have much more patina on the hour markers than on the hands. I have seen it again and again in many examples (Subs, GMTs, ExpII) and obviously, I am not referring to those where the hands were replaced. Seems Rolex during that time sourced tritium dials and hands from different suppliers that used different batches, leading to different rates of patina development.

See examples here: https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=97366

My watch maker told me the hands had been swapped out. I have had this since day one and I know they are the originals. I performed a google search for '1991 rolex submariner' and went to images. On the first page of search results there were twelve photos of different 1991 subs, all with the same dial patina and lighter hands. If you search for 1990 or 1992 you will not find as many.

[sillo]

Originally Posted by strafer_kid

At 28 years of age, it must be getting close to vintage but it all probably just comes down to interpretation?

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

It is if you want it to be. There's no official arbiter.

This. Some people will say it is, some people will say it isn't.

I find it's easier to refer to them as vintage at this point when discussing early 5 digits, but that's just me.

Originally Posted by SubMarine

but polished

what does this have to do with the thread at all? Nobody mentioned anything about polishing.

[oysterquartz17000]

Originally Posted by CPRWATCH

You mean 'Vintage' like my 81 matte dial

A sub on a jubilee? I like it

[springer]

My opinion, it is a "classic." This is post-vintage but not modern. I've been identifying these post-vintage watches as classic for quite a while now and the term has seemed to taken a hold on these post-vintage sapphire models.

If you research and do a search on "what is vintage" or "is my watch vintage" you'll find many threads on these topics in the vintage section here on TRF.

"Is my watch vintage" is a reoccurring topic here - hardly a week goes by without someone asking that question. Whether it is vintage or a classic by accepted definitions, nothing magical or mystical changes or enhances the value of the watch because you or someone else calls a watch vintage.

Here is a thread to get you started on your research:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=551004

[oysterquartz17000]

Originally Posted by springer

My opinion, it is a "classic." This is post-vintage but not modern. I've been identifying these post-vintage watches as classic for quite a while now and the term has seemed to taken a hold on these post-vintage sapphire models.

If you research and do a search on "what is vintage" or "is my watch vintage" you'll find many threads on these topics in the vintage section here on TRF.

"Is my watch vintage" is a reoccurring topic here - hardly a week goes by without someone asking that question. Whether it is vintage or a classic by accepted definitions, nothing magical or mystical changes or enhances the value of the watch because you or someone else calls a watch vintage.

Here is a thread to get you started on your research:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=551004

Thanks Springer. It turns out I am not the first to ask this question, my god, look at all of those threads. I am also just glad to have this watch back, it was away for six months.

[FreshPrince14]

To me, "vintage" is 30 years old... And "classic" is 20 years old... Although this stems from vehicles so maybe it isn't applicable to watches.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk

[swish77]

Originally Posted by springer

My opinion, it is a "classic." This is post-vintage but not modern. I've been identifying these post-vintage watches as classic for quite a while now and the term has seemed to taken a hold on these post-vintage sapphire models.

If you research and do a search on "what is vintage" or "is my watch vintage" you'll find many threads on these topics in the vintage section here on TRF.

"Is my watch vintage" is a reoccurring topic here - hardly a week goes by without someone asking that question. Whether it is vintage or a classic by accepted definitions, nothing magical or mystical changes or enhances the value of the watch because you or someone else calls a watch vintage.

Here is a thread to get you started on your research:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=551004

x2. Perhaps there should be a sticky on the topic "What is considered vintage?" That would probably cut down on all these threads.

[Racer X]

To those making the point that a 25+ year old watch should be considered to be "vintage" based on age, note that the term "vintage" in the watch world refers to a specific type of watch more than an age. It's sort of like how "modern" furniture includes furniture from the '40s and '50s. That stuff is 75 years old and still called "modern." IMO, once my 16610 gets old, it still won't fit within the "vintage" classification because it has a sapphire crystal, closed lug holes, WG surrounds, etc.

[petereoin]

I agree with Racer X as it is also my definition of "vintage"

Tritium, matte dial, open lug holes, deep chamfers, 4-digit ref