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

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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”

[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.

[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.

[koryong]

IMHO, for now only the 4 digit references has earned the vintage status.

[baumare]

I tend to agree with the 4 digits, and for the 5 digit I like the term "neo-vintage" that I've seen using in this Forum, which implied that eventually they will get the vintage status.
But as a man of 62 I optimistically considering myself "neovintage"

[ronricks]

Originally Posted by baumare

I tend to agree with the 4 digits, and for the 5 digit I like the term "neo-vintage" that I've seen using in this Forum, which implied that eventually they will get the vintage status.
But as a man of 62 I optimistically considering myself "neovintage"

Agree with the term neo-vintage. I also think in certain circumstances acrylic vs sapphire doesn't matter. For example an OQ 17000 from 1978 has a sapphire crystal but to me is indeed a vintage watch. Same for a 1978 18038 or 19018.

[Nickn]

Acrylic = vintage in my opinion

[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.

[SunTzu]

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

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

[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.

[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?

[ciceroyeah]

Originally Posted by 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?

I think everyone agrees that the plastic crystal/matte painted dial era is vintage, and many people are now referring to tritium applied-indice dials and sapphire crystals as neo-vintage.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by ciceroyeah

I think everyone agrees that the plastic crystal/matte painted dial era is vintage, and many people are now referring to tritium applied-indice dials and sapphire crystals as neo-vintage.

Thanks.
That means (for example) a 1665 Sea-Dweller, matte dial, superdomed plexi, mid 1970's is vintage?

[Nickn]

Yes

[Nickn]

For some reason I finished at 1976
Then I bought a 1979 16753 so my cut off date is now 79
No logic

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Nickn

Yes

Not sure.
Why in Rolex terminology such a watch is called CLASSIC?

[Nickn]

Plexi ,dial & date I guess