Patina and Polishing

[Justin Stacks]

Hi - I'm new to vintage so have a couple of questions.

I love patina, but at what point is it considered too much, or considered damaged?

What are your thoughts on the hands on this piece, and the case? Does it look polished?

It's ca. 1981, 16750 GMT.

I'm comfortable with the movement, etc. it's just the hands and the bezel.

Any info is appreciated. Thanks.

[Vincent65]

Hands are corroded, which isn't pretty but quite common. Some are better, some worse, but these are not great, to be honest. Likely some moisture ingress at some point in time. All part of the charm, though! I'd keep them original, if it were mine. Same with the insert, which is a little faded and looks great. It may well be a replacement anyway. case is definitely polished but still very strong, I'd say. Congrats and enjoy!

[Justin Stacks]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Hands are corroded, which isn't pretty but quite common. Some are better, some worse, but these are not great, to be honest. Likely some moisture ingress at some point in time. All part of the charm, though! I'd keep them original, if it were mine. Same with the insert, which is a little faded and looks great. It may well be a replacement anyway. case is definitely polished but still very strong, I'd say. Congrats and enjoy!

Thx Vincent for your input.

Unfortunately it's not mine (yet)…just a piece I am considering.

I am trying to find a piece that will hold its value (and possibly appreciate) and wondering if this a good example of vintage, or would a collector consider this piece "too polished", or "too much damage" as I do realise the less polish and less touched, the better.

Cost is in the $6400 USD range, no B&P.

[Vincent65]

No, not over-polished - it's a great watch, and that's a reasonable price IMHO.

[lhanddds]

Originally Posted by vincent65

hands are corroded, which isn't pretty but quite common. Some are better, some worse, but these are not great, to be honest. Likely some moisture ingress at some point in time. All part of the charm, though! I'd keep them original, if it were mine. Same with the insert, which is a little faded and looks great. It may well be a replacement anyway. Case is definitely polished but still very strong, i'd say. Congrats and enjoy!

x2

[Mick P]

Chaps

I must admit I am confused on this.

I recently bought a 1981 Freccione Explorer which has been polished over the years. Opinion in the forum seemed equally split as to whether it should be brought back to as new or left as it is.

It is currently in for a service and I decided on the advice of the AD to leave it externally as is.

I really don't know if I have made the right decision.

Mick

http://www.rolexforums.com/attachmen...1&d=1424007878

[aaamax]

Originally Posted by Mick P

Chaps

I must admit I am confused on this.

I recently bought a 1981 Freccione Explorer which has been polished over the years. Opinion in the forum seemed equally split as to whether it should be brought back to as new or left as it is.

It is currently in for a service and I decided on the advice of the AD to leave it externally as is.

I really don't know if I have made the right decision.

Mick

http://www.rolexforums.com/attachmen...1&d=1424007878

Not sure what your question is?
Vintage brought back to new is no longer vintage.

[Highland Ranger]

Wouldn't the apparent mismatch between the "patina" on the hands and the face impact value and / or represent possible different ages across the two?

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by Mick P

Chaps

I must admit I am confused on this.

I recently bought a 1981 Freccione Explorer which has been polished over the years. Opinion in the forum seemed equally split as to whether it should be brought back to as new or left as it is.

It is currently in for a service and I decided on the advice of the AD to leave it externally as is.

I really don't know if I have made the right decision.

Mick

http://www.rolexforums.com/attachmen...1&d=1424007878

It's totally up to you. There's nothing wrong in refinishing a case and bracelet on a vintage watch. It can greatly enhance it. Yours looks 'sleeve-worn' on the bezel and tops of the lugs. It could be refinished without removing much metal, IMHO, and it would look pretty sharp and not detract from its vintage charms. I'd definitely put a new crystal on it and think about refinishing the case and refurbishing the bracelet .

I do prefer cases raw, sharp and as close to unpolished as possible, but only if it's already like that when I get hold of a watch - then, I would not polish or refinish, but if it looks a bit soft, I'd probably get it done - properly.

Edit - lovely 1655, BTW!

[powerfunk]

Originally Posted by Highland Ranger

Wouldn't the apparent mismatch between the "patina" on the hands and the face impact value and / or represent possible different ages across the two?

They could very well be the same age IMO. Not all (or even most) hands and dials develop the same exact patina. I've always been a contrarian to the "hands must match the dial" school of thought. Sure, perfectly-matching original hands would fetch a premium, but I'd say the slight damage to the hands affects value more than the slight patina mismatch.

Looks like a pretty nice, honest GMT.

[springer]

Originally Posted by aaamax

Not sure what your question is?
Vintage brought back to new is no longer vintage.

Could you please explain this additionally...because I am not sure what you are saying?

[springer]

Nice watch and a nice case. I would have the hands replaced. Good luck with the purchase.

[MitchSteel]

+1

Great condition IMO.

[Kevin.S]

Originally Posted by springer

Nice watch and a nice case. I would have the hands replaced. Good luck with the purchase.

This

[Justin Stacks]

Originally Posted by springer

Nice watch and a nice case. I would have the hands replaced. Good luck with the purchase.

When you say you would replace the hands, is that from a wearers point of view or from a collector's point of view?

Wouldn't replacing the hands depreciate the value of the watch and even turn off potential buyers in the future?

I was always under the impression that the more original, the better in terms of value and collectibility (if that is even a word, lol)?

[waspy1]

Originally Posted by Justin Stacks

When you say you would replace the hands, is that from a wearers point of view or from a collector's point of view?



Wouldn't replacing the hands depreciate the value of the watch and even turn off potential buyers in the future?



I was always under the impression that the more original, the better in terms of value and collectibility (if that is even a word, lol)?

Corroded hands are very common on original sports models from late 70s and early 80s. The majority you will find have either new hands or poor condition ones. I'd expect they will continue to deteriorate. Much better that you have good looking (matching) hands which are not the original hands it was born with than grubby hands which spoil an otherwise clean watch. It's not like an investment grade super rare model, this should be bought to be worn and it could look better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk