When does a watch become vintage?

[springer]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Matte 16750's, 16800 and late 5513's are the difficult ones because they have only one of the two characteristics that most people think define vintage (plexi and matte dial).

16800 Subs have sapphire crystals.

[Vincent65]

"When does a watch become vintage?"

When - if you're buying one now - you know that you have to keep the amount you're paying for it a secret, because it's nuts.

[Tom1675]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Matte 16750's, 16800 and late 5513's are the difficult ones because they have only one of the two characteristics that most people think define vintage (plexi and matte dial).

Ya, only one makes it vintage... In a few years we will be looking at lug holes as a vintage indicator... Feel old yet?

[TurboTim14]

Originally Posted by Tom1675

In a few years we will be looking at lug holes as a vintage indicator... Feel old yet?

You're probably right. And not soon after maybe anything with a tritium dial will be considered vintage.

[dane75]

Originally Posted by Gmt21

Nope. If you care to clarify your points of wisdom go ahead.

This might help:

When it leaves the "steering-wheel-photos-and-your-watch-and-your-degree" threads in the modern forum and joins the "is-this-a-good-investment" thread here (in the vintage form).

[Gmt21]

Originally Posted by dane75

This might help:

When it leaves the "steering-wheel-photos-and-your-watch-and-your-degree" threads in the modern forum and joins the "is-this-a-good-investment" thread here (in the vintage form).

Hmm you just re-posted the same nonsense I was referring to.

[dane75]

Originally Posted by Gmt21

Hmm you just re-posted the same nonsense I was referring to.

You're killing me... but assuming you're serious, let's try it this way:

He's saying that (i) watches have achieved vintage status when the main question about them is whether they are a good investment, a question typically asked here in the vintage rolex discussion forum and (ii) watches have not yet achieved that status when the owner's main focus is posting them with pics of the owner's degree and car steering wheel.

If that doesn't do it for ya, I can't help you any more, brother.

And if you did understand it, and I'm just explaining it ad nauseum and uselessly, then well played.

[Gmt21]

Originally Posted by dane75

You're killing me... but assuming you're serious, let's try it this way:

He's saying that (i) watches have achieved vintage status when the main question about them is whether they are a good investment, a question typically asked here in the vintage rolex discussion forum and (ii) watches have not yet achieved that status when the owner's main focus is posting them with pics of the owner's degree and car steering wheel.

If that doesn't do it for ya, I can't help you any more, brother.

And if you did understand it, and I'm just explaining it ad nauseum and uselessly, then well played.

As a collector of vintage and modern pieces since the 1980s, I can attest that investment potential has very little to do with vintage status. This suggests that if a watch doesn’t have good investment potential then it’s not to be considered vintage? What about bubble backs (not good investments generally), not vintage? What about transitional 1980s subs, gmts, explorers etc, they have great investment potential, but are generally not considered vintage.

Furthermore the question about investment potential is posed all the time in the modern forum. If you get a SS Daytona at retail good investment right ? So is it vintage too?

Your second point is simply nonsense.

This is generally a serious forum for discussion about vintage watches.

For humour help yourself to the Jokes and Cartoon section.

[dane75]

My point? As I was simply interpreting something posted by another that you seemed unwilling or incapable of understanding (and something that most of the rest of us seemed to grasp), your assertion regarding "[my]... point" is the thing that is simply nonsense. From your failure to understand another person's post to your failure to differentiate between the interpretation of another's point and the assertion of my own (or, more accurately, in this case, the lack thereof), yours is the more easily indicted post, my friend.

More, when you failed to understand the original post, and I tried to explain it (for your benefit, mind, not mine), you respond with hubris. Why don't you cool your jets? This is a forum about watches, not some holy relic needing your august protection. Do better.

[statsman]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Are those clowns STILL posting “your watch with your degree” pics over there??

I replied, “I got my GED in prison”. A surprising number took me seriously.