Why do people find patina beautiful

[bjavor]

I've been wondering this for a while now.

Granted, I'm the type who likes new things, or more precisely things that look as close to original as possible.

I can understand why people appreciate a vintage watches, but personally my appreciation of one greatly increases the better shape it is in, the closer it looks to its original condition. (Though perhaps I just dislike the yellow/orange look on the hour markers...)

I also can see why people would _tolerate_ yellowed markers and hands on an otherwise good/desirable watch, but a lot of people seem to explicitely think that that is beautiful, which is something I haven't been able to grasp so far.

I'm curious if people can in some ways explain their reasons? Or is this purely a matter of "different strokes"?

[Vincent65]

If you don't get it, fair enough. We all have different tastes. I love patina. Why - it shows age.
I like vintage. Not new stuff. Especially not new faux patina. Why do they produce that?
People like faded jeans. Why?

[modee]

Well ideally for me, a tritium dial in perfect condition not yellowed I have several vintage Rolexes with those condition dials. But evenly "aged," holding up well is also great.

Cracked or unevenly yellowed, not my thing.

[jacko1]

shows character love the vintage look

[Richard Carver]

I think it's either something you grasp or you don't. If you can't see the beauty of a dusty black 50 year old paint and the creamy lume on the plots on an old sub dial perhaps you never will.

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time in museums but if you do it's the same feeling of magic. mystery and beauty you get looking at a Mona Lisa or a Paul Klee or other work of art that takes you out of yourself to a place of wonder and appreciation.

Appreciation begins with education, you've asked the question so perhaps the spark is there. Spend some time in the gallery, see if anything reaches out to you from the mists of time. :)

[Lordofrolex]

Not sure why but love the patina on my PAM 359.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by bjavor

I've been wondering this for a while now.

Granted, I'm the type who likes new things, or more precisely things that look as close to original as possible.

I can understand why people appreciate a vintage watches, but personally my appreciation of one greatly increases the better shape it is in, the closer it looks to its original condition. (Though perhaps I just dislike the yellow/orange look on the hour markers...)

I also can see why people would _tolerate_ yellowed markers and hands on an otherwise good/desirable watch, but a lot of people seem to explicitely think that that is beautiful, which is something I haven't been able to grasp so far.

I'm curious if people can in some ways explain their reasons? Or is this purely a matter of "different strokes"?

It's different strokes but there is a point where "charming patina" turns into "decimated" IMHO.

I also think it's partially a clever rouse by vintage watch dealers to claim that Watch X is very desirable when it isn't. They use words like "patina" or "tropical" as a way to move inventory that rational people wouldn't want. Some slight creamy beige on a Submariner hour marker looks great and gently aged, but a brown dial looks awful. When I was 1016 shopping I came across all of these gilt dials in horrible shape and Mercedes hands that were hollow with outrageous prices because they were so "original". A rusted an tattered '67 Corvette Stingray might be in original condition, doesn't mean I want to be seen driving it.

[Frogman4me]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

If you don't get, fair enough. We all have different tastes. I love patina. Why - it shows age.
I like vintage. Not new stuff. Especially not new faux patina. Why do they produce that?
People like faded jeans. Why?

+1


For me its the first thing that catches my eye. I like all shades of patina because it adds character to the watch. Its really what makes one vintage watch different from another. I love that the same watch can age so differently and that mystery alone keeps me motivated to seek them out. It's my favorite part of vintage watches

[jacko1]

Originally Posted by Richard Carver

I think it's either something you grasp or you don't. If you can't see the beauty of a dusty black 50 year old paint and the creamy lume on the plots on an old sub dial perhaps you never will.

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time in museums but if you do it's the same feeling of magic. mystery and beauty you get looking at a Mona Lisa or a Paul Klee or other work of art that takes you out of yourself to a place of wonder and appreciation.

Appreciation begins with education, you've asked the question so perhaps the spark is there. Spend some time in the gallery, see if anything reaches out to you from the mists of time. :)

well said

[bjavor]

Originally Posted by speedolex

It's different strokes but there is a point where "charming patina" turns into "decimated" IMHO.

I also think it's partially a clever rouse by vintage watch dealers to claim that Watch X is very desirable when it isn't. They use words like "patina" or "tropical" as a way to move inventory that rational people wouldn't want. Some slight creamy beige on a Submariner hour marker looks great and gently aged, but a brown dial looks awful. When I was 1016 shopping I came across all of these gilt dials in horrible shape and Mercedes hands that were hollow with outrageous prices because they were so "original". A rusted an tattered '67 Corvette Stingray might be in original condition, doesn't mean I want to be seen driving it.

I reply to this first because I agree with this most. A little patina might be fine, but many pictures I've seen are really way beyond "beautiful" for me. As someone suggested my opinion may change over time. I've made some quite amazing 180 turns in terms of what I like since I've begun looking at watches...

[bjavor]

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

+1


For me its the first thing that catches my eye. I like all shades of patina because it adds character to the watch. Its really what makes one vintage watch different from another. I love that the same watch can age so differently and that mystery alone keeps me motivated to seek them out. It's my favorite part of vintage watches

OK. See I actually quite like the Sub. That picture does have a nice sort of creamy tone to it and it goes quite well with the strap and also your skin tone. However the Tudor below it is already beyond what I'd like, and frankly I simply cannot understand how someone (without a personal history with it) could ever like that Certina. (No offense please, it's just my opionion. I know it's against forum rules to belittle things that other people might like, but in this case it is sort of on topic and just serves as an example where I'd definitely draw the line.)

[watchlovr]

Every. One. A. Stunner.

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

+1


For me its the first thing that catches my eye. I like all shades of patina because it adds character to the watch. Its really what makes one vintage watch different from another. I love that the same watch can age so differently and that mystery alone keeps me motivated to seek them out. It's my favorite part of vintage watches

[springer]

Originally Posted by speedolex

It's different strokes but there is a point where "charming patina" turns into "decimated" IMHO.

I also think it's partially a clever rouse by vintage watch dealers to claim that Watch X is very desirable when it isn't. They use words like "patina" or "tropical" as a way to move inventory that rational people wouldn't want. Some slight creamy beige on a Submariner hour marker looks great and gently aged, but a brown dial looks awful. When I was 1016 shopping I came across all of these gilt dials in horrible shape and Mercedes hands that were hollow with outrageous prices because they were so "original". A rusted an tattered '67 Corvette Stingray might be in original condition, doesn't mean I want to be seen driving it.

I agree with many of your points here and how it relates to cars. I prefer some nice dial marker patina on my watches and even some of the brown "genuine" tropical dials. Personally, I'm not a fan of the damaged dials that are hyped as tropical, or the damaged, rusted or lumeless hands found on many vintage watches which, for me, add nothing to the the aesthetics of the watch.

[Vincent65]

"OK. See I actually quite like the Sub. That picture does have a nice sort of creamy tone to it and it goes quite well with the strap and also your skin tone. However the Tudor below it is already beyond what I'd like, and frankly I simply cannot understand how someone (without a personal history with it) could ever like that Certina. (No offense please, it's just my opionion. I know it's against forum rules to belittle things that other people might like, but in this case it is sort of on topic and just serves as an example where I'd definitely draw the line.)"


We're glad to know where your line is, then

[bjavor]

Originally Posted by Richard Carver

I think it's either something you grasp or you don't. If you can't see the beauty of a dusty black 50 year old paint and the creamy lume on the plots on an old sub dial perhaps you never will.

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time in museums but if you do it's the same feeling of magic. mystery and beauty you get looking at a Mona Lisa or a Paul Klee or other work of art that takes you out of yourself to a place of wonder and appreciation.

Appreciation begins with education, you've asked the question so perhaps the spark is there. Spend some time in the gallery, see if anything reaches out to you from the mists of time. :)

OK, now to this :) I do like museums and I do like paintings. (Though mostly impressionist ones and none of that modern crap...) I've even seen the Mona Lisa in person. But to go with that comparisson I definitely like the Mona Lisa better in a condition where you can actually make out the painting. While it would still be fascinating if it was in a worse shape, but I would hardly call it "more charming" if all the paint was totally faded or discoloured to the degree where it makes it difficult to see the actual painting...

[ChicagoFrog]

As others have said, it's just something that calls to you or doesn't. I only own one modern watch, and it's a Nomos without lume plots anyways. For me, the beauty is in the aging and how two watches from the exact same production line in the same year can look completely different based simply on the life they've led.

It takes on another life, as well, if you buy from the original owners and get a glimpse into their lives / what created the current look.

[swish77]

All new watches of a particular model look exactly the same. No two vintage watches of a particular model look exactly the same.

For me, that's it in a nutshell, although I do like the warmth of aged tritium. If you're into vintage watches, or vintage cars, guitars, furniture, etc ... you love how each piece has become unique through time ... and its patina.

[Kingface66]

And it's not JUST the patina. It's that it's natural patina, on a 50 year-old watch, that was designed by designers/watchmakers who had an aesthetic that related to the time. There was an elegance specific to that period. And one of those watches coupled with some natural aging, fading, color-changing, can make for an incredibly unique piece. And for many of us, a new Rolex carries none of that charm. It's a watered-down, beefed-up, stale version of something that could've only been designed when it was.
The watch on the left says absolutely nothing to me except, "Hey, I spent a lot of money on a watch that everyone else without any imagination can buy." Whereas, the one on the right....well, if you don't "get" why it's as beautiful as it is, then maybe you never will. And that's fine. And I do mean that.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by bjavor

I reply to this first because I agree with this most. A little patina might be fine, but many pictures I've seen are really way beyond "beautiful" for me. As someone suggested my opinion may change over time. I've made some quite amazing 180 turns in terms of what I like since I've begun looking at watches...

Yes, you've got it right. It's completely a matter of personal preference, there is really no debate here, it's completely subjective.

That said, my opinion, the SD shown above is fantastic, definitely what I'd want to own as a mint condition vintage watch with just a hint of aging on the dial to signify it's age. It's a perfect example of a well-patina'd wristwatch.

But faded bezels, brown burnt dials, skeletonized hands, scratches, that's where I'm out as there comes a point where it's no longer about nostalgic charm, it's just run-down. You can draw a parallel to cars, homes, movie stars, any walk of life, there comes a point where it's gone beyond return and there's no passing it off as anything but bad.

[fizz]

For me, its a combination of the contrast that the yellowed patina provides, especially to a black dial (ala 5513) and the fact that it makes the dial noticeably different than anything else. White and new looks sterile in my opinion. Aged and yellowed gives character and, as some others have said, mystery.

[seattleal]

Originally Posted by swish77

All new watches of a particular model look exactly the same. No two vintage watches of a particular model look exactly the same.

Exactly - It adds individuality.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by seattleal

Exactly - It adds individuality.

There is another way to look at individuality, and it comes from finding a very clean and mint condition version of a discontinued vintage watch. That's what gets me excited. See, I appreciate the age of a watch but I also think older generation Rolexes were simply better looking because they had less bling and I can't find brand new Sport models that replicate their features.

I can wear my 1960 Explorer, a 56 year old 1016, and everyone thinks it's a brand new Rolex. And when I tell them its age, they are amazed at what good condition I keep it in, they give me props for coveting and preserving such an interesting timepiece.

Two sides to the same coin. That's what makes the hobby fun.

[jban5]

I like patina that is a subtle result of oxidation and fading or even rubs. For some reason when someone refers to a dent or a scrape or a soldered lug as being a wonderful and desirable patina it makes me choke. Same thing I feel about overly colored tritium markers, they look to me like something that has been done artificially and I don't care for it.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by speedolex

There is another way to look at individuality, and it comes from finding a very clean and mint condition version of a discontinued vintage watch. That's what gets me excited. See, I appreciate the age of a watch but I also think older generation Rolexes were simply better looking because they had less bling and I can't find brand new Sport models that replicate their features.

I can wear my 1960 Explorer, a 56 year old 1016, and everyone thinks it's a brand new Rolex. And when I tell them its age, they are amazed at what good condition I keep it in, they give me props for coveting and preserving such an interesting timepiece.

Two sides to the same coin. That's what makes the hobby fun.

Love a 1016! But at 56 years-old shouldn't that have a gilt dial?

[bjavor]

Originally Posted by swish77

All new watches of a particular model look exactly the same. No two vintage watches of a particular model look exactly the same.

For me, that's it in a nutshell, although I do like the warmth of aged tritium. If you're into vintage watches, or vintage cars, guitars, furniture, etc ... you love how each piece has become unique through time ... and its patina.

I like this explanation, and I can buy into that. Thanks!

None-the-less I'd like to still maintain that there is probably a point until which I could accept the "this is a beautifully unique individually aged item" and beyond which it becomes a scrateched/chipped/yellowed/rusted beyond hope mess... Now if it has some sort of historical significance, especially if it is personally connected to you in some way, than you might still cherrish it of course for all of its history, but would _really_ think of it as beautiful?

[Toronto Soup King]

In total seriousness, you're equating knocks and dings in a watch case, plus dial deterioration - yes, I mean "getting worse" - to fine art of the sort you find in museums? And citing the Certina in u/Frogman4me's post as a stunning example of this? Museums employ professional restorers...just because dirt is old doesn't mean it's valuable.

With respect, gentlemen, I think you have taken this no-restoration idea too far. For most people flaking paint is no more acceptable on a watch dial than on the front door to their house, and missing lume on hands to the extent where you think of mediaeval diseases when seeing them, is just plain ugly. Would you drive a car with rusty wheels, calling the rust "patina"? Keep burned-out headlamps on the Jag just because they're original rather than replacing them? Broke a side mirror in the sixties, so just leave it like that for fifty years in the name of tradition? I'm glad none of you was involved with rewiring my electrical system!

I can hardly take you guys seriously when you recommend not restoring watches as in this thread - "leave it as is", when the dial's been sandpapered! Maybe it was OLD AUTHENTIC VINTAGE sandpaper though eh http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=471436

Anyway, just thought I'd give the opinion from the other side of the Great Divide.

[rootbeer7]

I can't actually explain it, but every time I look at my 1665 I'm intrigued. Matt greying face and warm cream tritium markers. Btw, David, what a collection and as for that double red....nothing further to add

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Love a 1016! But at 56 years-old shouldn't that have a gilt dial?

Thanks! 1960 was the first year of the 1016 and I've got a late 1960 serial number so it's likely it was non-gilt. What it has is a RSC dial and hands from its last service in 1979 which have stayed remarkably bright and white, couldn't be happier.

What I want is a brand new 1016, I dream of finding the very last one made locked away in a safe somewhere with a dial and hands that have never seen the light of day because I think what Rolex has done with the current Explorer is an abomination.

I get that patina is acceptable in vintage collecting right now, doesn't mean that those of us who appreciate mint condition pieces are doing some sort of injustice to the hobby. Twas a time that great credit was given for a minty-mint vintage Rolex, akin to a proof coin from the US mint. Some of us still adhere to that side of the hobby, we think too much aging is simply a crappy example, not some special "patina" or "tropical" nonsense.

[jacko1]

Mine is not that bad

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by Toronto Soup King

In total seriousness, you're equating knocks and dings in a watch case, plus dial deterioration - yes, I mean "getting worse" - to fine art of the sort you find in museums? And citing the Certina in u/Frogman4me's post as a stunning example of this? Museums employ professional restorers...just because dirt is old doesn't mean it's valuable.

With respect, gentlemen, I think you have taken this no-restoration idea too far. For most people flaking paint is no more acceptable on a watch dial than on the front door to their house, and missing lume on hands to the extent where you think of mediaeval diseases when seeing them, is just plain ugly. Would you drive a car with rusty wheels, calling the rust "patina"? Keep burned-out headlamps on the Jag just because they're original rather than replacing them? Broke a side mirror in the sixties, so just leave it like that for fifty years in the name of tradition? I'm glad none of you was involved with rewiring my electrical system!

I can hardly take you guys seriously when you recommend not restoring watches as in this thread - "leave it as is", when the dial's been sandpapered! Maybe it was OLD AUTHENTIC VINTAGE sandpaper though eh http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=471436

Anyway, just thought I'd give the opinion from the other side of the Great Divide.

I didn't see that thread originally, thanks for mentioning it!