Why is unrestored vintage better than restored?

[Jiva]

Just kinda curious... I have a GMT Master, 1968. Unrestored. It has some corrosion on the hands... the bezel is worn a bit... for me, I look at it, and yes, it has history, but it also looks "old". I'm curious what the allure is for vintage watches that LOOK old and beat up?

I mean, part of the pleasure of wearing a rolex is that it's jewelry and beautiful and pristine... when that watch is old and worn heavily, instead, it's more like an old antique. Wouldn't it be better, even if you want to keep an older vintage watch, to have it be in pristine, like new condition?

I mean, doesn't an old car that's bean lovingly restored draw a higher price tag than one that's rusty and scratched? Why are watches different?

BTW, FWIW, I'm not going to restore the watch... just more curious what other's thoughts are on this. And I apologize if this is flame bait.. That's not my intent.

[pdoukas]

There's a difference between restoring it with new service replacement parts versus vintage old parts in NOS condition. Restoring to original condition is what I would do, but it is a personal preference. For example, I wouldn't trade the watch hands for luminova replacement hands that glow but rather source old tritium style hands where the patinia matched the plots on the dial.

Pete

[Frogman4me]

It's only original once...

And I do not agree with the bragging rights thing.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

It's only original once...

Bingo!
dP

[Beaumont Miller II]

Jiva, I don't know of anybody here on the vintage side that would walk around saying, "look at my beautiful expensive Rolex." Most wearers of vintage Rolex that "look old and heavily worn" could easily sell that vintage treasure for the price of a newer model. I used to follow the car collector market for awhile, and I am not sure that the analogy between the car market and the vintage watch market is a perfect fit. Good fit sometimes, but perhaps not perfect. Welcome to vintage.

[sleddog]

Well, I'll start with the bragging rights.
Completely untrue for most, and in fact, most Rolex owners would prefer not to be noticed for the watch they wear..and couldn't care less!!

In the watch world, a pristine untouched example is worth more because of the fact it's untouched. This adds value because of it's originality! (and rarity!)

[Jiva]

Originally Posted by sleddog

Well, I'll start with the bragging rights.
Completely untrue for most, and in fact, most Rolex owners would prefer not to be noticed for the watch they wear..and couldn't care less!!

I appreciate what you're saying there... maybe bragging rights wasn't the right phrase to use. I meant... a rolex is jewelry... isn't newer, pristine, undamaged jewelry generally considered better? Perhaps not... perhaps it's like "This is my grandmother's ring." Ok, I get that... because it's belonged to a relative... but when you're buying it from others... it doesn't have that personal history, so why not restore it? That's more my question.

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by sleddog

Well, I'll start with the bragging rights.
Completely untrue for most, and in fact, most Rolex owners would prefer not to be noticed for the watch they wear..and couldn't care less!!

In the watch world, a pristine untouched example is worth more because of the fact it's untouched. This adds value because of it's originality! (and rarity!)

I agree about the bragging rights. I DON'T like it when people realize I am wearing a Rolex, and if it looks old and worn-out, that is better. I wear it for ME and nobody else.

Originally Posted by Jiva

I appreciate what you're saying there... maybe bragging rights wasn't the right phrase to use. I meant... a rolex is jewelry... isn't newer, pristine, undamaged jewelry generally considered better? Perhaps not... perhaps it's like "This is my grandmother's ring." Ok, I get that... because it's belonged to a relative... but when you're buying it from others... it doesn't have that personal history, so why not restore it? That's more my question.

For us in the vintage realm, it is not jewelry. It is a functional piece of history. Sometimes the older and more faded, the better. If it doesn't make sense, maybe vintage is not for you??

Incidentally, for me personally.......I am a bit different then several of the other vintage enthusiasts. If Rolex still sold the 1680 Sub today with a plexi crystal, superluminova, and otherwise EXACTLY as it was originally supplied.......I would buy one in a second. I just love the older models better than the "updated" and "superior" heavy and bloated new models. I also like the warmth of the plastic crystals.

[jedly1]

yes, no, sort of ....what would be better would be a watch that had survived in such pristine condition that it was old but looked minty ....but that is a rare rare beasty ........and these days seems to be the slightly optimistic view of what everyone is looking for and expecting when they start looking for a vintage piece and is seldom what they end up buying.

past that yes there are plenty of folk who agree with you and are happy with sharp, serviced and maintained pieces rather than 'wabi'd pieces ...i know people who wouldn't dream of having a watch with loads of patina, expect an up to date secure bracelet ..and even grumble if the dial doesn't glow ...i mean talk about broken :)...i was talking to a guy yesterday who was laughing about all this unpolished hype...and like he pointed out the first thing that he sees that as an indication of, is that the watch hasn't been regularly serviced or cared for .....


....all just personal preference to what floats your boat

as a wise man once said ...."Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. .. thats the watch world for you....

[HORNBLOWER]

The big jean manufacturers have made a fortune selling new torn and faded jeans, what does that tell us about what we really like!!!

[Jiva]

Originally Posted by HORNBLOWER

The big jean manufacturers have made a fortune selling new torn and faded jeans, what does that tell us about what we really like!!!

THIS may be the best analogy... you have a point there. That makes sense.

[greekbum]

Its whatever floats your boat you know.......its your watch do whatever you want to it. I personally am an extreme guy I either prefer the clean piece like Jedly says that survived or I like the distressed look. If I want the new look I have a new Rolex to wear that day when im in that mood.

[dricig]

I think it also depends on model.

for instance, I have a 1987 TT date-just that was totally redone by Rolex NY to look like new.

I would not do that to my 16750 GMT Master since it is more desirable in it's present "used" state.

I am a big fan of vintage, however,
I personally think that the whole "unpolished" thing is a crock, I don't care for so called tropical or spider dials since I think they are defects and the whole faded bezel thing is getting out of control!
Just my opinion

dave

[Frogman4me]

I don't consider my watch jewelry.

[dricig]

Originally Posted by Frogman4me

I don't consider my watch jewelry.

I agree, that's my point in comparing the DJ with the sport models.
Certain models like the DJ and DD are more like jewelry and require an ocassional spa treatment while the vintage guys like their sport models to retain the vintage look.
To each his own!
dave

[HL65]

Personally I love defects!! Just my opinion...

[Frogman4me]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

Personally I love defects!! Just my opinion...

+1 for true tropical

[Frogman4me]

duplicate...

[dddrees]

There is a big difference between a car and a watch.

The car is big for one thing so even if you polish here and replace there it still looks like an older car, because the body styles of yester year are no longer the body styles of today in most cases.

For a watch it doesn't take much if you replace here or polish there it just is no longer the same. A watch is pretty small, so there's not that much to work with. With a Rolex if you replace here or polish there then the watch of yesteryear becomes almost pretty much the watch of today because they have stayed pretty much true to form mostly.

[harry in montreal]

Scuffed up original looks real. Pristine restored makes me wonder about authenticity. H

[paddy_crow]

I wouldn't necessarily say original is better, I would say it's more collectible and as a result it's likely worth more.

[tuonor]

I actually think the vintage car market analogy holds reasonably well. If you are looking at "recent" old cars then closer to showroom is better. A large part of why this is acceptable (and in many cases desireable) is that original factory parts are still available for restoration.

If you are looking at classics from 40+ years ago (275s, speedsters, etc.) provenance and originality matter increasingly more. It is much harder to find parts and machining a new shift gate might be akin to a relume. In all cases, unrestored and perfect trumps all.

The reality is most collectors have differing opinions regarding what is most desireable. The "right" level of patina is not a rule but a preference (a clear example of this from rolex land is spider dials). But that's what's great about the hunt...

[oinkitt]

Im wearing this dead persons watch today - most would consider it a peice of crap but I much perfer it to any "restored" watch.



I have an Aston Martin DB4 in similar condition and thats what I find appealing about it - crows feet paint, ripped leather and all its other defects. You could easily buy one in good restored condition but try and find one that hasnt been messed with. I guess "each to their own!!!"

[bb3188]

Originally Posted by oinkitt

Im wearing this dead persons watch today - most would consider it a peice of crap but I much perfer it to any "restored" watch.



I have an Aston Martin DB4 in similar condition and thats what I find appealing about it - crows feet paint, ripped leather and all its other defects. You could easily buy one in good restored condition but try and find one that hasnt been messed with. I guess "each to their own!!!"

Nice on Adrian....... nothing wrong with minty dials either but watches like these have lived a life ......

[Orchi]

Err Buddies...for Orchi it's different strokes for different folks...
as some would say...

At times quite oftenly...
certain restoration works could be deemed as necessary...
n required on certain Vintage Rolex...
n many other brands of reputable Vintage watches too...

For as long as the restoration is nicely n suitably done...n presentable...
Orchi would like it too...

Otherwise...
Orchi shall try to stick to its raw n as original state of conditions...
as possible...when deciding on acquiring the watches...

Hopes to share the following raw examples...

Rolex 1665 DRSD Mk.4...



Rolex 1655 Explorer II a.k.a Freccione with Mk.2 Dial/Mk.2 Bezel...



Rolex Tudor 7031/0 Chronograph a.k.a Monte Carlo Homplate...




Rolex 1665 DRSD MK.3...

[HL65]

Well- unrestored original mint watch is always better...But would you restore a mint watch anyway? NO! When restoring as long as matching with period correct parts all good. The one thing that is a must IMHO is a pristine dial. The dial can't be restored and have a watch retain it's value.

[SWIMPRUF]

Because it's original and untouched.

[Jagatai]

I have a pristine 5512 that I had to sent to bob Ridley because i didn't know what was inside the movement.

He told me it had never been serviced in 45 years!

[harry in montreal]

orchi, i love those. when you see the aged luminous, dinged cases, stretched bands. you know its the real-deal. you cant really pay for this, and i think its much more interesting than anything restored.

all the sports cars i have owned; i have never repainted the bumpers. as soon as it has overspray, nobody can fairly determine what happened to it.

i would never upgrade my bubbling tudor 7021 dial. it just looks right to me. the others in better shape dont.

[Orchi]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

orchi, i love those. when you see the aged luminous, dinged cases, stretched bands. you know its the real-deal. you cant really pay for this, and i think its much more interesting than anything restored.

all the sports cars i have owned; i have never repainted the bumpers. as soon as it has overspray, nobody can fairly determine what happened to it.

i would never upgrade my bubbling tudor 7021 dial. it just looks right to me. the others in better shape dont.

Err Buddy Harry...Orchi agrees to that...

Can't exactly put a finger on it or describe the good feeling...
when such a watch comes in Orchi's path...

Err...somewhat like RAW PORN...Bang! Bang! Bang!

Here's another example of a RAW n original Tudor 9411/0...





At USD1,800 per shot...Orchi for one can't resist...Bang! Bang!