Vintage/ modern

[Jennababe]

Hey guys, Jenna here ! What are your favorite vintage models and modern models? I'm trying to decide if I want to go for the more classic look or rock the modern flash

[ferrissteve11]

Having had both my inclination is toward modern in this particular case. Vintage and I never really had a long or real pleasing run together. I prefer the modern upgrades for an everyday watch. Vintage definitely is sweet, but just not my current cup of tea. Though like all things YMMV. I'm sure you'll have comments on both sides of this particular question.

[Ritch99]

I am partial to both...Here are a few previously posted pics of sets of modern and vintage together.

[sco]

I can appreciate vintage models, but for an everyday piece for me, it's modern. No question..

[Timesurfer]

I'm going through a Daytona phase... so I'm going to say...

Paul Newman Daytona and.....
Modern Daytona!

But I also have a thing for GMT's and Sub's so.... it's a hard choice....

[tbreihan]

Vintage: A tie between the...

1680 Sub-date (I love the top-hat crystal) and
TT 1675 GMT-Master root beer nipple-dial on a Jubilee bracelet

Modern:

114270 Explorer (36mm)

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Ritch99

I am partial to both...Here are a few previously posted pics of sets of modern and vintage together.
Attachment 787993

Attachment 787995

Beauty shots Mitch

I'm in too

[sea-dweller]

Modern: Hulk or 116520. Vintage: 1675 GMT,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ritch99]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Beauty shots Mitch

I'm in too

Very nice! 2 of the best!

[Vishy26]

My favorite trio 1665,1680 and 1675. But vintage bring in its own share of headaches. All things considered, 5 digits better I think.

[tvad]

To my eye, that's a nearly ideal combo of modern and vintage. Substitute the new Explorer for the one in the photo, and what more would anyone need?

[Ritch99]

Originally Posted by tvad

Attachment 788966

To my eye, that's a nearly ideal combo of modern and vintage. Substitute the new Explorer for the one in the photo, and what more would anyone need?

I agree, Already on it. I have already moved the Exp1 and will be picking up a new 2016 shortly :)

[THC]

Both for me as well..

[J!m]

For Rolex, I love vintage, which for me requires a plexi Crystal. The aforementioned 1680 with the correct (not service) top hat Crystal is just great. It starts a conversation even with non-watch nerds because of the crazy Crystal. I love it so much I had to have a Tudor 9411 also with the correct top hat Crystal.

I think in general the vintage models are warmer. Edges are softer, finishing was done by hand, plastic Crystal is literally warmer as compared to the sapphire Crystal. Dial markers are tritium, and although they don't glow any longer, their color is warmer than the stark white of luminova markers. (A vintage with a luminova service dial is pretty cool too but does not get the warm marker color).

Let us know what you decide on!

[terryuk]

Originally Posted by J!m

For Rolex, I love vintage, which for me requires a plexi Crystal.

I think in general the vintage models are warmer. Edges are softer, finishing was done by hand, plastic Crystal is literally warmer as compared to the sapphire Crystal.

Let us know what you decide on!

I agree. This is in line with my own view on vintage vs. modern.

Let's be honest, mechanical watches are an anachronism, technologically speaking. (although rolex customers have apparently firmly rejected quartz ...)
Until around 1970 when digital watches came available, mechanical was the only choice.
In the period when my own favorite (GMT) was designed, many of the manufacturing processes involved were hand-operated. No computer aided stuff in those days, and those designs reflect that fact.
I like the plexi crystal (even though it might scratch easier than sapphire!)
I like the aluminium bezel insert ( ditto)
I like the hour markers which are basic blobs of paint ( don't like the ones with shiny metal circle around the lum, it serves no purpose )
etc, etc,
So I guess, at least regarding my own GMT 16750 , even though it was manufactured circa 1981, it looks exactly like what it really is - a watch designed in the 1950's-60's, and true to the technology of a past era.