IS this how sad this hype has made it ....

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

Just a tidbit "tell" for polished...

If you look at the lug holes and can see what I call, "bowl-ing" - like a bowl, yes, it represents a molestation to the hi-polish profile of the side of the mid case.

The edge of a holed lug that is sharp has not...

Originally Posted by jedly1

i mean this is the nicest way but ....bollocks :)

a GOOD polisher can re cut a sharp flat finish easily in exactly the same way the factory did.

plus and as a minor aside an unpolished watch that has had year of strap bracelet rotations , will show signs of 'bowling'

These illustrate hand or wreckless dremel abuse, not "strap changes".

This is my definition of "bowling"...

[AG1]

As a happy amateur, my comments on the subject should clearly be taken for what they are... but here we go anyway:

I totally agree that it's getting a bit out of hand, especially in terms of watches clearly being over-stated. However, I don't think over-stating a case is any different to over-stating a dial or any other part, and these parts are also being over-stated at times (right?).

However, I can't see why we should pay any less attention to the case than the dial. I mean, if we're being picky about perfectly matching, unchipped tritium, intact minute markers, absence of spots, etc. then why not require the same standards from the case? Now, I'm not saying we should all go asking for perfect cases. I'm just saying that I can personally see why people would be willing to pay a premium for a good case in the same way that they pay a premium for a good dial and hands. To me, it's part of the package and I like to value the various aspects of a watch together. There was a time when some claimed that ~80% (or whatever the number was) of a vintage watch's value was in the dial - which always seemed a bit weird to me. I can't quite see why a chipped minute marker should be a bigger problem than case that's been polished just a tiny bit more than it perhaps should have.

Just some humble thoughts :)

AG1

[jedly1]

The only real difference is that a dial and hands are parts that have been sealed in a waterproof box for all there life so apart from the odd service removal have no reason to be damaged ...except the ravages of time / light.... Nor to show wear.

The outside is a different matter.

The main point we agree on though , there's nothing wrong with wanting unpolished ., especially if you appreciate the realities of that.....and As long as you know what that is and as long as you don't get ripped off buying something you believe is when it isn't.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by AG1

As a happy amateur, my comments on the subject should clearly be taken for what they are... but here we go anyway:

I totally agree that it's getting a bit out of hand, especially in terms of watches clearly being over-stated. However, I don't think over-stating a case is any different to over-stating a dial or any other part, and these parts are also being over-stated at times (right?).

However, I can't see why we should pay any less attention to the case than the dial. I mean, if we're being picky about perfectly matching, unchipped tritium, intact minute markers, absence of spots, etc. then why not require the same standards from the case? Now, I'm not saying we should all go asking for perfect cases. I'm just saying that I can personally see why people would be willing to pay a premium for a good case in the same way that they pay a premium for a good dial and hands. To me, it's part of the package and I like to value the various aspects of a watch together. There was a time when some claimed that ~80% (or whatever the number was) of a vintage watch's value was in the dial - which always seemed a bit weird to me. I can't quite see why a chipped minute marker should be a bigger problem than case that's been polished just a tiny bit more than it perhaps should have.

Just some humble thoughts :)

AG1

Great post and agree !

[Scary Hat]

Originally Posted by mike

A real beauty Jed.

One of the great things about the internet is the flow of knowledge that exists.

Sadly it also creates so many instant "experts".

I totally agree.
Owning and collecting is what makes this pursuit so enjoyable. Meeting
genuine experts face-to-face (Jacek, in San Francisco, Kyle O'Connor,
Walnut Creek, CA) and talking watches with them helps me to appreciate
the nuances of these fine watches and the passion that folks have to own
them.

Beautiful watch with a great story behind it

[Genevapics]

Originally Posted by Transcon

The 1675 I am wearing right now is polished, the 16760 enroute to me has been no doubt polished. Possibly I just have my head up my ass with my lack of knowledge in what constitutes polished, overpolished, bowl's, or proper chamfers. I guess I just choose to take a much more simpleton approach and view them all as beautiful works of art and craftsmanship that have stood the test of time. All I know is every time I look down at my wrist (which is often) and see a vintage piece all I can do is smile, to me that is what this is all about

I think you have a very good way of looking at this hobby. Like you say, as long as the vintage piece makes you smile then all is good.

[BaltimoreBrian]

Jed, this is a beauty!!!! :-)

[zeuloa]

Great thread! Where can we get that beautiful leather strap?

[jedly1]

i only just found out there is an accessories section on here !!!

but here you go...... not many left.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=222399

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by jdc

Well said and how sellers can say its unpolished after it has been through many hands over the years is plain daft. Just cause its got battle scars does not mean its unpolished. I would rather have a pristine example serviced and polished by Rolex looking like it once should have done than a battered old war horse.

X2

[smartson]

Jed

What a nice watch you have and I agree with your sentiment.

When I see ad that says "UNPOLISHED", I usually translated it to "POOR CONDITION WITH SCRATCHES AND MARKS. SIGNS OF ABUSED BY PREVIOUS OWNERS". I would look more carefully to prove myself wrong.

[BaltimoreBrian]

Jed, you are an asset to the vintage collector and the vintage collecting world. Thank you for your insight and sharing your experience and knowledge. BTW, I am more than ecstatic about the purchase of this red sub! ;-)

[Beaumont Miller II]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreBrian

Jed, you are an asset to the vintage collector and the vintage collecting world. Thank you for your insight and sharing your experience and knowledge. BTW, I am more than ecstatic about the purchase of this red sub! ;-)

X 2 I think that Jed's knowledge, insight, and willingness to share have benefitted virtually everyone that closely follow the Vintage Rolex Discussion here on TRF. Stunning watch BB.

[Frogman4me]

Originally Posted by Beaumont Miller II

X 2 I think that Jed's knowledge, insight, and willingness to share have benefitted virtually everyone that closely follow the Vintage Rolex Discussion here on TRF. Stunning watch BB.

Well said John

[HERITAGE82]

Originally Posted by Transcon

The 1675 I am wearing right now is polished, the 16760 enroute to me has been no doubt polished. Possibly I just have my head up my ass with my lack of knowledge in what constitutes polished, overpolished, bowl's, or proper chamfers. I guess I just choose to take a much more simpleton approach and view them all as beautiful works of art and craftsmanship that have stood the test of time. All I know is every time I look down at my wrist (which is often) and see a vintage piece all I can do is smile, to me that is what this is all about

WELL PUT AND I LOVE MY POLISHED 5513 AND WHEN I LOOK DOWN I SEE NOTHING BUT BEAUTY!!!.....