At what point is a piece considered “vintage”?

[thsiao]

At what point is a piece considered “vintage”?

I have a DJ36 from 2006 which come to think about it is going to be 15 years old this year... looks very modern still and in perfect condition. Not vintage I suppose?

[arcadelt]

Originally Posted by thsiao

At what point is a piece considered “vintage”?

Most things are considered vintage when they are 50 years old, but the general consensus for watches is 20 years...unless it is a Breitling where the Breitling collector community has decided that vintage is anything before 1979.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by thsiao

Not vintage I suppose?

Nope. Not yet.

[watchmavan]

Agreed. Watches generally it's 20 years. I call my 20 year olds neo-vintage and just vintage at 25.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by arcadelt

Most things are considered vintage when they are 50 years old, but the general consensus for watches is 20 years...unless it is a Breitling where the Breitling collector community has decided that vintage is anything before 1979.

Originally Posted by watchmavan

Agreed. Watches generally it's 20 years. I call my 20 year olds neo-vintage and just vintage at 25.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No way is a Rolex from 2001 vintage. Nor even one from 1996.

As for the question of when, it’d be best to ask how many times has this question been asked here. There’s a massive collection of threads on the topic that you can search out.

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

No way is a Rolex from 2001 vintage. Nor even one from 1996.



As for the question of when, it’d be best to ask how many times has this question been asked here. There’s a massive collection of threads on the topic that you can search out.

Yes, both here on the forums and on the broader internet. And you'll find many references to 20 years, discontinued models, 5 digit Rolex references etc. Your opinion is different, not necessarily right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

Yes, both here on the forums and on the broader internet. And you'll find many references to 20 years, discontinued models, 5 digit Rolex references etc. Your opinion is different, not necessarily right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Fair enough. But show me evidence of a consensus that a watch from 2001 (20 years ago) is regarded as “vintage”

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Fair enough. But show me evidence of a consensus that a watch from 2001 (20 years ago) is regarded as “vintage”

Since vintage has no precise meaning, members are allowed to call their 20 year-old watches vintage if they choose, and the rest of us are allowed to roll our eyes about it.

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Fair enough. But show me evidence of a consensus that a watch from 2001 (20 years ago) is regarded as “vintage”

So in your first post you told someone to go and look in the forums for verification of what vintage is. Ive done that many times over the years as the lack of uniformity is something that annoys me slightly. So I'd say you take your own advice rather than me doing it again for you. Wanting me to provide it for you digests you haven't done it yourself prior to your offsetting of advice, so I will say that there isn't a consensus at this point. There are general views that support 20+ years and those that day 50. There are also many listing supporting the other points I issued.

Personally, I own watches from the 60's through to modern day pieces so this has always been of interest to me. But without consensus, it will also remain my opinion. It is however an opinion shared by many others and documented in the forums, Facebook user groups and the broader internet. I would also say that 20 years on its own is not enough for me though. It would also need to be a discontinued model and have features that are no longer available in current models. My Explorer II fits these criteria on all these and as 2020 I began referring to it as neo-vintage. I'll probably change that to vintage if Rolex bring out another new Explorer this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[springer]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

Yes, both here on the forums and on the broader internet. And you'll find many references to 20 years, discontinued models, 5 digit Rolex references etc. Your opinion is different, not necessarily right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I would disagree with your analysis on what is vintage. Being on the internet is not synonymous with being accurate or correct.

A 20-year-old discontinued model would be considered a classic but not within the parameters of vintage. If you view some previous threads here on TRF concerning the vintage question, there are some good perspectives in many of the responses on what is vintage.

And, a question for the OP, what difference does it make if a watch is called vintage? Nothing magical or mystical happens to a watch because it is considered or called vintage. The only thing mystical about vintage is the desire to call one's watch vintage.

jP

[upsidedownbelt]

25 years for me.

[Aferrariguy]

I don’t look at it solely based on the year, but mostly the reference. What if it’s the same reference as a 25 year old watch, but the very end of the production?

[Stan Cooper]

As a general rule for Rolexes, I use the switch from acrylic to sapphire crystals as a guide for what's vintage and what's not. That historic reference point will change with time.

[arcadelt]

Originally Posted by Stan Cooper

As a general rule for Rolexes, I use the switch from acrylic to sapphire crystals as a guide for what's vintage and what's not. That historic reference point will change with time.

When did that happen @Stan Cooper?

[Stan Cooper]

Originally Posted by arcadelt

When did that happen @Stan Cooper?

Using the GMT Master as an example, the switch to sapphire occurred in 1983 with the introduction of the GMT Master II Ref. 16760 "fat lady." The year of the switch differed with the model, but generally it would have been in the mid-1980s.

I'm 78, so to me 35 years ago is relatively recent.

[springer]

Originally Posted by thsiao

At what point is a piece considered “vintage”?

I have a DJ36 from 2006 which come to think about it is going to be 15 years old this year... looks very modern still and in perfect condition. Not vintage I suppose?

I would agree with your "I suppose" if it means it is not vintage.

[harry in montreal]

JP, that looks like an Indian Larry bike!

I’m turning 48 in a couple of days, and I consider myself vintage. I keep poor time, I have a lot of stretch, and my face has plexi.

[swaini3]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

JP, that looks like an Indian Larry bike!

I’m turning 48 in a couple of days, and I consider myself vintage. I keep poor time, I have a lot of stretch, and my face has plexi.

[springer]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

JP, that looks like an Indian Larry bike!

I’m turning 48 in a couple of days, and I consider myself vintage. I keep poor time, I have a lot of stretch, and my face has plexi.

It was built by Jeff McCann, a very well known chopper builder from Oakland who happened to be a personal friend and painter for Arlen Ness. He passed away about five years ago.

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by springer

It was built by Jeff McCann, a very well known chopper builder from Oakland who happened to be a personal friend and painter for Arlen Ness. He passed away about five years ago.

Yes. I can see your view, but like mine and everyone else's, it's just your opinion. As I said, there is no consensus it appears on this and the internet via user groups does lend itself to the most accurate views of users, as you've used to express your own view. This is an area so devoid of consensus that I would challenge anyone to present a correct view. I've been after one for 15 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Nickn]

Acrylic = vintage in my opinion

[watchmavan]

Originally Posted by Nickn

Acrylic = vintage in my opinion

Current day Speedy Hesalite!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ciceroyeah]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

Current day Speedy Hesalite!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think it's more brand-specific. Each brand made incremental improvements at different times. AP and Patek, for example, were using sapphire long before Rolex started to, while brands like Tudor, Omega and others have contemporary throwback models that harken back to earlier technological limits and specifications and do not represent their cutting edge anymore.

[Nickn]

Originally Posted by watchmavan

Current day Speedy Hesalite!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That’s a classic not a vintage that only comes with age

[Paulie 50]

4 Digit, plastic glass.

[GST15]

1978- Probably Vintage

. 1999- Probably Not

JMHO

[ciceroyeah]

Originally Posted by thsiao

At what point is a piece considered “vintage”?

I have a DJ36 from 2006 which come to think about it is going to be 15 years old this year... looks very modern still and in perfect condition. Not vintage I suppose?

Personally, I use the tritium boundary to distinguish the "modern" and "neo vintage" eras, and both of which are subsequent to the "painted hour markers" epoch which defines the entirety of the Vintage era when all the coolest shit happened (Bond, legitimate use by military and professional divers, frequent appearances in hollywood movies etc.).

Modern watches use light-absorbing lumen as a dial illuminator rather than radioactive isotopes, and therefore the dial, if in NOS condition, will appear as new indefinitely. Premodern tritium/radium decay will inevitably eliminate dial luminosity and leave the hour markers a shade of cream or orange/brown.

Simplified:

pre 1984 (before the introduction of both solid gold surrounds on SS submariner dials with sapphire crystals) = vintage
1984-1997 tritium = neo-vintage/transitional
1997-2010 = modern aluminum
2010 = modern ceramic

There are some weird outlier transitional pieces that fall into multiple camps.

[MrChamfers]

Originally Posted by ciceroyeah

Personally, I use the tritium boundary to distinguish the "modern" and "neo vintage" eras, and both of which are subsequent to the "painted hour markers" epoch which defines the entirety of the Vintage era when all the coolest shit happened (Bond, legitimate use by military and professional divers, frequent appearances in hollywood movies etc.).

Modern watches use light-absorbing lumen as a dial illuminator rather than radioactive isotopes, and therefore the dial, if in NOS condition, will appear as new indefinitely. Premodern tritium/radium decay will inevitably eliminate dial luminosity and leave the hour markers a shade of cream or orange/brown.

Simplified:

pre 1984 (before the introduction of both solid gold surrounds on SS submariner dials with sapphire crystals) = vintage
1984-1997 tritium = neo-vintage/transitional
1997-2010 = modern aluminum
2010 = modern ceramic

There are some weird outlier transitional pieces that fall into multiple camps.

Very well said.

[SunTzu]

I've always wanted to know the answer to this question.

I'm shocked nobody has ever asked it here before.

[saxo3]

It's amazing that the world of Rolex watch collectors has not yet agreed on an accepted defintion for Vintage.
So I better don't ask what the difference between Vintage and Classic is, the latter one also used by Rolex.
Could the used terms be linked with the movement series instead of years?