Why does refinishing dial/hands dimish value?

[dshin525]

I was just thinking about this the other day. I have a 5513 from 1987. I am thinking about getting the dial and hands re-lumed b/c I just like the functionality of having a lume. Now in my case, it's not a "valuable" example, unlike some of the amazing watches I see posted here.

As I was reading through various threads on re-luming, as well as refinishing and what not...the general consensus seems that doing such things will diminish the value, as collectors like everything original.

To me it doesn't make much sense. In most cases with vintage collectibles, restoration (while keeping parts original) will enhance its value. A vintage car for example...if it has paint peeling, rusts, etc...you would want to restore it, not only to make it look better, but to increase the value would you not? Why doesn't the same principal hold for watches?

What say you?

[springer]

Originally Posted by dshin525

I was just thinking about this the other day. I have a 5513 from 1987. I am thinking about getting the dial and hands re-lumed b/c I just like the functionality of having a lume. Now in my case, it's not a "valuable" example, unlike some of the amazing watches I see posted here.

As I was reading through various threads on re-luming, as well as refinishing and what not...the general consensus seems that doing such things will diminish the value, as collectors like everything original.

To me it doesn't make much sense. In most cases with vintage collectibles, restoration (while keeping parts original) will enhance its value. A vintage car for example...if it has paint peeling, rusts, etc...you would want to restore it, not only to make it look better, but to increase the value would you not? Why doesn't the same principal hold for watches?

What say you?

I would say the same thing applies to cars that applies to watches. While an old, rusty, paint-damaged classic car is worth more restored, an old, classic car that is not in need of restoration has substantial value - usually more than the same restored classic car. As the owner of some classic American muscle cars, I know that sometimes it is a fine line when trying to determine whether a car should be restored or kept original due to its condition. I remember back when I was showing my 1966 Shelby years ago - the restored cars were so nice, that often the judging came down to the originality of the parts vs reproduction parts. The cars with the original parts always did much better than those with the reproduction parts. And when it came time to sell, the more original the car, the higher the price.

[shane0mack]

Originally Posted by springer

I would say the same thing applies to cars that applies to watches. While an old, rusty, paint-damaged classic car is worth more restored, an old, classic car that is not in need of restoration has substantial value - usually more than the same restored classic car.

Your last line is correct, Springer, but typically (as you know very well), an un-restored vintage Rolex in rough shape is worth more than a restored one. Especially when the restored one had work done to the dial and lume. I think that's what the OP was getting at. A roughed up, un-restored vintage car isn't worth as much as a fully restored example.

[dshin525]

Originally Posted by shane0mack

Your last line is correct, Springer, but typically (as you know very well), an un-restored vintage Rolex in rough shape is worth more than a restored one. Especially when the restored one had work done to the dial and lume. I think that's what the OP was getting at. A roughed up, un-restored vintage car isn't worth as much as a fully restored example.

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. It just seems odd to me that collectors will pay a premium (sometimes a significant) one for a copy with with very rough looking dial/hands if its untouched.

[Vincent65]

Put simply - because it's not original any more. A watch (or car) in original and pristine condition (i.e.; not in need of restoration) is worth significantly more than one which has been 'done up'.

[Im Lauf der Zeit]

Because it's only original once.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by dshin525

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. It just seems odd to me that collectors will pay a premium (sometimes a significant) one for a copy with with very rough looking dial/hands if its untouched.

This is not always true and depends on the scarcity of the example. A nicely and properly restored 5513 will likely go for more than an original one in poor condition; they are not particularly rare, simply collectible.. This may not be true for an original Newman Daytona or Moonphase Rolex..

I would say though, a proper service dial is more desirable than a poor re-lume.

[dshin525]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

Put simply - because it's not original any more. A watch (or car) in original and pristine condition (i.e.; not in need of restoration) is worth significantly more than one which has been 'done up'.

That is a given...but I am talking about one in poor condition vs a restored of the same version. For example:



This might not be the best example...but for illustration purposes, assuming that the restored one retained all original parts and underwent thorough cleaning and refinishing if the dial and hands...which would be more desirable?
Based on the opinions I read hear, I think most would prefer the untouched one?

[John in MA]

It depends on the rarity IMO. I would think the rarer an example the better chances of getting good money for one with a restored dial and hands due to the scarce availability of original parts. Original will always be more but in those cases it isn't as big an issue.

However the more common the bigger the hit from a percentage of value.

Take this 16800 I have and the 1680 I did have. I wanted lume to glow on these. However I knew I'd take a big hit if I restored the originals if I tried to sell. So I sourced 2nds. The 16800 I had a 2nd dial relumed and got service hands while the 1680 had service hands and dial. For both I put the originals away. I'd recommend doing the same for your 5513.

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by dshin525

That is a given...but I am talking about one in poor condition vs a restored of the same version. For example:

This might not be the best example...but for illustration purposes, assuming that the restored one retained all original parts and underwent thorough cleaning and refinishing if the dial and hands...which would be more desirable?
Based on the opinions I read hear, I think most would prefer the untouched one?

I understand what you mean - personally, of those two, I'd rather own the beautifully restored one, over the not-so-great 'original' condition

[dshin525]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

I understand what you mean - personally, of those two, I'd rather own the beautifully restored one, over the not-so-great 'original' condition

As would I. Great minds think alike!

[Darlinboy]

There is no "rational" explanation.

It's all about what the market demands. And what the Rolex collector market demands and values is original components and patina.

For a comparison other than vintage cars, think antique furniture, where refinishing or even just replacing hardware can remove large chunks of value.

I say do what you want with your own watch, but with your eyes open if the resale value matters.

[MitchSteel]

Vintage Rolex market is a fickle b$&ch, one day it's the Explorers are all the rave, next it's the Daytona.........and so on.Who controls the market?..........us, crazy,loonie toon collectors.......some are a bit more loonie than others.......
Dark patina, light patina, all in between, some like them unpolished, some like them as new, some like them with fungus growing on the dial.........
So, originality vs condition.........the answer is.....what you like.......
I personally wouldn't relume, I like them as original as possible, but in good condition.........that's what makes this hobby so interesting, fun, frustrating.....
Oh, yeah, I'm starting to really like darker patina........I'm getting pretty patinaed with age, maybe that's why.

[dshin525]

Originally Posted by Darlinboy

For a comparison other than vintage cars, think antique furniture, where refinishing or even just replacing hardware can remove large chunks of value.

That's actually a really good analogy. I watch Antique Roadshow, Pawn Stars, and shows similar...and i cant remember how many times I've seen furniture ruined (from a value perspective) b/c the owner tried to restore it.

[Presa canary]

The best comparison actually is vintage firearms... And the answer is just because. There's no real right or wrong here. It's what the market/collectors want.

[Presa canary]

Hopefully I'm allowed to say firearms. If not, my bad mods. Delete away

[Widows Son]

Originally Posted by Presa canary

Hopefully I'm allowed to say firearms. If not, my bad mods. Delete away

You're not, because someone will post a pic then we're all in trouble!!!!

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by Widows Son

You're not, because someone will post a pic then we're all in trouble!!!!

oops…

[Widows Son]

One solution would be to purchase new hands and dial and store the originals. I had a Breitling dial redialed by International Dial because it was so bad, it was unreadable. Not a real valuable watch, so no big deal.

[anilzat]

My 2¢

If it ain't broke don't touch it. If it's broke just fix what's necessary and don't go overboard. Age brings out character, not abuse. An example is a Colt 1911, the value was 1,300.00, someone thought it would be cute to add checking, which was a failure since they knew nothing about that subject. it's only worth 350.00 right now, the labor will be staggering to repair.

[sishac]

I love Springers analogy..... As an owner of a not-so -rare 1965 Mustang convertible, I made the decision to drive and enjoy the car , which necessitated doing some non original things. It my car was a Shelby, even. 20 years ago I wod have hesitated due to rarity. Same thing with watches....I have a 1680 with a service dial that glows like the sun...LoVE it!! If it was a milsub. , I would want it as original as possible .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slcbbrown]

For watch nuts and real collectors, much of the value is in the condition of the original watch/parts. For much of the Rolex buying public, condition and usefulness of the watch is the key, and there is a lot more tolerance of replaced parts that are in good shape.

[motoikkyu]

I truly enjoy being at shows and hearing "Oh, what a shame, the dial's been re-done!" If you weren't present at the time of the decision, reserve judgement. Original and crappy doesn't get sold: decently refinished can be entry-level example for a collector, or suitable for retail customer. Ugly and unattractive just sits in the case and you hear "I'd be interested, if only the dial were a little better." I enjoy the old adage "Condition is only important in the SECOND one you buy."