Judging originality

[cruvon]

Hi, have a query on originality wrt restored watches. Have come across quite a few very old vintage watches sent in for a restoration for example pre Daytona chronographs. Where does a watch that has been restored place it against one that is unrestored? Would it still be considered original and how could one tell? Also what things are acceptable in a restoration so that a restored watch stacks up well against a non restored example? For example is taking rust off hands or cleaning a faded dial acceptable v/s other restorations where parts are replaced by period correct but ones not original to the watch, dial and hands relumed, etc? Would love to hear your thoughts on what's considered acceptable in a resoration and what isn't, in calling a watch original and as close to an unrestored watch as possible,

Cheers

[Clay]

In my opinion...

- A watch is only "original" once!

- A "Period Correct" replacement part is fine, but agin it isn't "original".

- I think to take original parts and have them "cleaned" is fine and should be part of regular maintenance anyway.

- I will pass on a watch that has been relumed or "altered" in any way.

For my taste, I think a watch that has been restored with "Period Correct" parts is fine.
In fact, in most cases, unless you've owned the watch since new, it can be very hard to determine what has been changed and what hasn't...

[HERITAGE82]

Originally Posted by Clay

In my opinion...

- A watch is only "original" once!

- A "Period Correct" replacement part is fine, but agin it isn't "original".

- I think to take original parts and have them "cleaned" is fine and should be part of regular maintenance anyway.

- I will pass on a watch that has been relumed or "altered" in any way.

For my taste, I think a watch that has been restored with "Period Correct" parts is fine.
In fact, in most cases, unless you've owned the watch since new, it can be very hard to determine what has been changed and what hasn't...

X 2... Well said Clay

[cruvon]

Thanks Clayton for the explanation.
Just curious, does anyone know how exactly a dial clean is performed for a badly faded dial to look like new and how is rust from hands removed? Wouldn't such a restoration attempt pose a risk to the original lume on the dial and hands besides the dial and hands themselves getting damaged? Then would doing nothing and not restoring a watch that shows such damage due to passage of time put it at additional risk by way of rust further eating into the hands or the dial getting worse?
Also what's the preference from an originality/wearability point of view, a faded dial with rusted hands or a watch with the hands and dials restored with the added risk of damaging the dial and hands while restoring which could cause it to loose it's originality?
Offcourse using period correct replacement parts is an option but for some rare watches, such replacement parts are almost impossible to find.
A dilemma I guess many would face on whether to keep the watch unrestored or to restore it, especially when looking for unrestored watches that have been uncared for over the years only to be rediscovered decades later, some of them ravaged by time and the elements.

[Keeperoftime]

Originally Posted by QCASANOVA

X 2... Well said Clay

[cruvon]

Some more watch tech queries in addition to the ones above, also what's the difference between a refinished dial and a cleaned up dial? My guess is that in a refinished one markers, lume, fonts are artificially recreated whereas for cleaned dials the dial is washed with some sort of solvent and any imperfections are left as is, is that correct?

[springer]

One thing about restoring a watch or any other vintage item, once restored it's not original anymore. In my opinion, normal service is not considered restoration but maintenance. Some things are worth more restored and some are worth more original. You'll have to weigh the merits of each before determining if a restoration is necessary.