Would you consider this a "vintage"?

[mui.richard]

Gentlemen,

I must admit, before I purchased my 16014 & 6694 I wouldn't have thought I'll be this much into vintage watches. I have always been weary, due to my lack of knowledge, that I'd end up with a franken or worst case a fake.

Today I took the plunge again, while it may not be a "vintage" per se, the thinner case shape suits my puny 6" wrist better and I think I'll enjoy wearing it more than a "big block".

Here's my 79270, serial B92xxxx so it's circa 1997-8. I wish it came with a plexi but we all know only the 791xx ref or earlier do.

So here it is...



a watch is meant to be worn

[MonBK]

No

[mui.richard]

Originally Posted by MonBK

No

May I ask how so?

a watch is meant to be worn

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by mui.richard

May I ask how so?

a watch is meant to be worn

Someone recently on the forum said it best.

Would you call a 20 year old girl vintage?

[Micha]

Love those Big Blocks...true classics already
vintage in another 5 to 10 years...???
even though I would not call a 30 year old girl/woman vintage either

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Micha

Love those Big Blocks...true classics already
vintage in another 5 to 10 years...???
even though I would not call a 30 year old girl/woman vintage either

It's not a Big Block. It's the later, thinner 792 series.

Not vintage, IMO.

[actionkwj]

Originally Posted by MonBK

Someone recently on the forum said it best.



Would you call a 20 year old girl vintage?

Great comparison I'd call it a classic and someday it will pass over to vintage, but not yet!

Beautiful example, by the way. I've always lived the silver panda dial configuration!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Verdi]

Vintage stops at '80s in my books.

[mui.richard]

Points taken gentlemen, classic it is then


a watch is meant to be worn

[U5512]

Not a vintage.

[thomaspp]

Congrats!

No, not vintage but a really great watch.

[Fresh_1]

Originally Posted by thomaspp

congrats!

No, not vintage but a really great watch.

x2

[landroverking]

Not yet. Maybe never? Just old.

[mui.richard]

Ok, now I'm officially confused. Are there particular attributes that contribute a "vintage"?

And certain attributes that disqualify a piece off the bat?

Personally I think the line draws somewhere with the presence of plexi/sapphire...but this is obviously a newbie's pov.

a watch is meant to be worn

[jonmears1]

GREAT lookin watch whatever the category

[mui.richard]

Originally Posted by jonmears1

GREAT lookin watch whatever the category

Thanks! And oh don't get me wrong it's perfect for me. Haven't been able to track down a reasonably priced chronograph in a while and then this came along at a pretty good price, USD2,400. Case refinished in 2014 @RSC and is looking fresh without overly polished.

I did try a big block 79170 but the case looks thick on my small wrist...and the price is crazy for what it is, over 2k more.

a watch is meant to be worn

[offrdmania]

I consider Pre-85 as vintage

[yannis]

Nice Tudor nonetheless.

[michael067]

Nice piece. Not vintage as of yet.

[submorstua]

I've found this interesting with watches - in most collecting circles I've seen, older than 25 years is where "vintage" begins (I mostly think of guitar collecting).

However it seems much less agreed on with watches. Perhaps because there's such a big change to Rolex dials (matte to gloss) at ~35 years right now. I wonder how long it will take for 5-digit Rolexes to be called vintage.

The Tudor seems vintage to me. It's already a classic!

[Vincent65]

"1997-8" = modern

[Mick P]

Originally Posted by mui.richard

Gentlemen,

I must admit, before I purchased my 16014 & 6694 I wouldn't have thought I'll be this much into vintage watches. I have always been weary, due to my lack of knowledge, that I'd end up with a franken or worst case a fake.

Today I took the plunge again, while it may not be a "vintage" per se, the thinner case shape suits my puny 6" wrist better and I think I'll enjoy wearing it more than a "big block".

Here's my 79270, serial B92xxxx so it's circa 1997-8. I wish it came with a plexi but we all know only the 791xx ref or earlier do.

So here it is...



a watch is meant to be worn

A girl born in 1997 -98 would still be a teenager. Would you consider her vintage and if so, what does that make you.

Regards

Mick

[harry in montreal]

There is no rule about vintage. Rare. Scarce.

Does it even have the Rolex crown , caseback or band? To me this is a cutoff for Tudors. I would think late 70s is the vintage sunset

[mui.richard]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

There is no rule about vintage. Rare. Scarce.

Does it even have the Rolex crown , caseback or band? To me this is a cutoff for Tudors. I would think late 70s is the vintage sunset

It has a Rolex triplock crown, "Original oyster case by Rolex Geneva" caseback, and a Tudor clasp'd bracelet.

Late 70's...so the 791xx refs are out...

And these wouldn't be "vintage"?



a watch is meant to be worn

[roh123]

Some will say yes and some will say no. Does it really matter?

Personally I'd expect a plastic crystal to even consider it. Then again I would disqualify white gold indexes among other things. Each to their own. There isn't a correct answer..

Very nice watch by the way. Like it a lot!

[mui.richard]

Originally Posted by roh123

Some will say yes and some will say no. Does it really matter?

Personally I'd expect a plastic crystal to even consider it. Then again I would disqualify white gold indexes among other things. Each to their own. There isn't a correct answer..

Very nice watch by the way. Like it a lot!

Actually no it doesn't really matter, I love the watch nonetheless. I'm just trying to learn a bit more...

I've always thought vintage watches is a mine field, and being in Hong Kong amongst all the frankens, refinished dials, fake patina's and what not is not making this an easy fear to overcome.



a watch is meant to be worn

[roh123]

Originally Posted by mui.richard

Actually no, I love the watch nonetheless. I'm just trying to learn a bit more...

I've always thought vintage watches is a mine field, and being in Hong Kong amongst all the frankens, refinished dials, fake patina's and what not is not making this an easy fear to overcome.



a watch is meant to be worn

I envy you being in Hongkong as it is a great market for vintage. So many watches around.

You also have good dealers if you want to buy nice stuff.

[mui.richard]

Originally Posted by roh123

I envy you being in Hongkong as it is a great market for vintage. So many watches around.

You also have good dealers if you want to buy nice stuff.

That maybe. 1016's and 5513's are all over the place. Even older references like the 6610 gilt track are not difficult to locate in some shops so if you have the dough they are there. Trouble is it is difficult to pull the trigger even if I had the money, always questioning the legitimacy of the pieces. And knowing how certain Hongkongers (or anywhere else for that matter) do business makes this almost impossible for some newbie like me.

Reading and studying online is one thing, actually judging a piece is a totally different ballgame.

a watch is meant to be worn

[Perpetual74]

No plexi+tritium no party :)

[fusionstorm]

For Rolex, IMO the "classic" formula for vintage classification is (in order of importance)

No metal gold surrounds
Non-luminova dial (so tritium or radium)
4 digit reference
Plexi crystal

Matte & no metal surround dialed 16660 Sea Dwellers, 16800 Subs and 16750 GMTs are generally considered vintage, though some purists resist b/c of the sapphire crystal. Glossy metal surround dialed 5513 Subs have also been gaining some recognition as vintage.

Anything manufactured after the last of the 5513s left the factory are going to have a lot of resistance as being labeled "vintage".

I don't know where the demarcation point is for Tudors being vintage.