Vintage What is the Attraction?

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by BH13GMT

I think you have hit the nail on the head, if i could only have 1 Rolex, it wouldnt be a vintage model. it would have to be a modern daily beater. However should my collection stretch to 3 models, the vintage would be on the shopping list. The vintage would be used for special occcasions, . . .

This is my feeling. My daily beater is a 16610 and I wear vintage on weekends. And if I could afford the 300SL, I would likely only drive it on weekends or special occasions, and wouldn't care one bit if it had poor ventilation!

[tuonor]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I found myself so turned off by it because it was NOT the latest and greatest. I mean, Rolex has made several improvements over the years, if they were not IMPROVEMENTS, then why would the have been implemented?

It is interesting to me that we are talking about advancements with respect to a spring powered, mechanical watch. To the younger generations (my 19 year-old kid for example), that is akin to improving the typewriter.

For me, vintage is all about the uniqueness of the individual piece, and ultimately, the emotion the piece spurs when you put it on. Actually, that's what all of my watches are about, modern or vintage...doesn't a cell phone have a more accurate and versatile clock built-in anyway?

[Ski Dweller]

Originally Posted by conrail

craze implies it was happening and then passed. cougars never cease to provide entertainment

Indeed.

[Rick-O]

For me, the attraction is more than the thrill of the chase, it is watches with character....WARM plexi instead of cold sapphire....they remind me of simpler times...

[mcjp6]

Originally Posted by onkyo

Vintage Rolex = character and feel

Modern Rolex = monotonous and boring ... despite improved technology.

I own both modern and vintage Rolex though my brain screams vintage.

IMHO you nailed it Pav........

[onkyo]

Originally Posted by mcjp6

IMHO you nailed it Pav........

Thanks Michael

[nomad99]

Love my Vintage 1980 OPD. It's classic even with my brown leather band that I switch up from time to time.

[Widows Son]

Great thread!!! I prefer vintage watches over new ones. I love the history and the fact that not everyone is wearing what I do. I have some heirloom furniture that's been in the family for 150 years. Don't think much of today's pressed wood "furniture" will be around then. I have a mostly original 61 Bug, and a 87 Softail. I could buy a new fuel injected Harley but it won't do anymore for me than my 87. I enjoy using fountain pens, and winding my mechanical watches. I guess I am turning into my father!!

[Dr. Robert]

bah humbug.....@ 60 yrs. old.........I am now vintage too......

[conrail]

Originally Posted by nomad99

Love my Vintage 1980 OPD. It's classic even with my brown leather band that I switch up from time to time.

From that pic, that looks like a great leather strap!

[Dan2010]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

bah humbug.....@ 60 yrs. old.........I am now vintage too......

Hey Bob, I think you forgot a zero on your age!

[Dan2010]

I kinda get the whole vintage thing. Though it is not vintage by any stretch, I still crave the simplicity of my first Rolex, a 14060M because it is such a modern throwback to the original. Since having the Sub C, GMTIIC and 39MM Explorer I, I have a hard time getting another one because of the bracelet.

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by Dan2010

I kinda get the whole vintage thing. Though it is not vintage by any stretch, I still crave the simplicity of my first Rolex, a 14060M because it is such a modern throwback to the original. Since having the Sub C, GMTIIC and 39MM Explorer I, I have a hard time getting another one because of the bracelet.

Different strokes for different folks. I prefer the rattly, lightweight 93150 bracelet. Honestly, the updated clasp is what I dislike the most on my 116619. It is too long, and cumbersome. I love the older flip-lock

[3lj]

Originally Posted by Widows Son

Great thread!!! I prefer vintage watches over new ones. I love the history and the fact that not everyone is wearing what I do. I have some heirloom furniture that's been in the family for 150 years. Don't think much of today's pressed wood "furniture" will be around then. I have a mostly original 61 Bug, and a 87 Softail. I could buy a new fuel injected Harley but it won't do anymore for me than my 87. I enjoy using fountain pens, and winding my mechanical watches. I guess I am turning into my father!!

This. There is something so great about wearing a watch that not just anyone can go and buy. The older it gets, the more unique it is in my mind.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

To each his own and I guess if one needs to ask it isn't for them. Personally- I enjoy owning super rare pieces that are pretty close to impossible to find in the condition I collect. Anyone can walk into an AD and buy a new modern watch and be part of the crowd of masses. Few can hunt down rare grails and stand apart from the crowd. As for 90-91- can't say that is vintage as far as I am concerned but more of a tweener but that is a whole different strory. Last but not least...With vintage there is charm and character something to me modern watches lack. I will let some pictures be the rest of my words...

Ken,

you have an amazing collection and probably the most persuasive point pro vintage

as far as all new design choices being an improvement

Paul,

i offer lugholes as an example:
aesthetically some may choose a solid case with out lugholes however,

from an engineering standpoint, removing a bracelet is a overly tedious and messy job with the modern no lughole case (using the tiny fork tool) vs a simple pin for the older lughole designs.

the new design is said to be plenty strong, i can't argue that, but the lughole design seems stronger as the pin has a longer throw and the pin i believe is thicker.
I also wonder about the no lug hole case filling up with dirt over time and not allowing the pin to seat fully, thereby lessoning the strength? whereas the lughole design is self clearing

the choice to remove the lugholes seemed to be made solely to remove an owners personal choice of bracelet or strap. a watch with lugholes can use virtually any manufacturers bracelet or strap.

so i ask, were the removal of lugholes an improvement




and don't get me started on those new welded clasps

[HL65]

Thanks!!!

[The Archer]

I am an avid baseball card collector as well as watches. I don't buy packs of cuurent Topps cards though. I go for T206/T205 cigarette cards from 1906-1909. I like the history of older items, and have just been bitten by the vintage Rolex bug. 50 years from now I hope my 116520 will tell the same kind of story some of these vintage pieces do.

I'm really getting an itch for a 1655.....

[Yeager]

This is the attraction...and reason I sold all my watches to buy....

[Jason71]

^^ That is a real Beauty Yeager

[AWS]

Very nice Yeager!

[chland7]

Just recently found a mint/safe kept Datejust same year I was born randomly at an estate jewelry shop. It is one of my cheapest/perhaps favorite pieces in my collection. For some reason the history/character/rarity is very appealing.

[joe100]

Why Vintage?

GMT-Master...PanAm, El Che, Chuck Yeager, Concorde
Explorer I...Everest,
Explorer II...TransGlobe Expedition, Steve McQueen
Submariner/SD...Comex, Jacques Cousteau,
Tudor...USN, French Navy, Porsche...

It's all about the connection for me!

[MB7000]

I have to say that the bracelet on a vintage is way more comfortable then some of the new models IMHO

[Ditch]

I'm 27 & I only buy 1955-69 because (in order of importance):

1) Their style appeals to me. I just can't pull off the modern large & bling-focussed watches.

2) In the 60s the world changed in many massive ways. You have to go back a very long way to find a more important time.

3) I like the idea that they have a history & I'm only the current custodian.

4) Someone else takes the initial depreciation hit & if I buy well it should hold most of it's value.

5) The search & research is fun. As another member mentioned, any idiot can win the lottery & buy new.

[Passionata]

Originally Posted by Ditch

I'm 27 & I only buy 1955-69 because (in order of importance):

1) Their style appeals to me. I just can't pull off the modern large & bling-focussed watches.

2) In the 60s the world changed in many massive ways. You have to go back a very long way to find a more important time.

3) I like the idea that they have a history & I'm only the current custodian.

4) Someone else takes the initial depreciation hit & if I buy well it should hold most of it's value.

5) The search & research is fun. As another member mentioned, any idiot can win the lottery & buy new.

If you are really 27 you can consider yourself as a wise man pal!


Best
George

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[SubmarinerMariner]

[QUOTE=SteelerFan65;2651375]To each his own and I guess if one needs to ask it isn't for them. Personally- I enjoy owning super rare pieces that are pretty close to impossible to find in the condition I collect. Anyone can walk into an AD and buy a new modern watch and be part of the crowd of masses. Few can hunt down rare grails and stand apart from the crowd. .... Last but not least...With vintage there is charm and character something to me modern watches lack.


Agreed...

[JohnBoy]

Its not an either/or attraction for vintage vs. new that interests me (semi-retired, and also an engineer (mechanical), a machinist of sorts, but not a watchmaker). The older watches (not necessarily 30+ years old, but usually missing a bracelet, or otherwise imparied in some way) all present a challenge of sorts. If its a little beat up, so much the better - to a point - I avoid major movement work. Its kinds fun getting good deals, then, if its a little behind the power curve, there is something to anticipate while doing a little hand work, gathering parts, leather straps, dials, crystals, bracelets, buckles, end pieces, options, arranging repairs, whatever. Having the approximate time is good enough anymore and the golf course doesn't care about lots of water or pressure resistance. The small collection is growing slowly and the rotation is sufficient - well...except for 'the grail Daytona' someday Best to all!

[floater156]

Originally Posted by tuonor

It is interesting to me that we are talking about advancements with respect to a spring powered, mechanical watch. To the younger generations (my 19 year-old kid for example), that is akin to improving the typewriter.

For me, vintage is all about the uniqueness of the individual piece, and ultimately, the emotion the piece spurs when you put it on. Actually, that's what all of my watches are about, modern or vintage...doesn't a cell phone have a more accurate and versatile clock built-in anyway?

Great response, you are a gentleman and a scholar.