ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

HongNinja · 1 June 2011, 11:56 AM

Hey Guys,

I was just curious on your takes on the difference between "vintage" and "modern" Rolex timepieces. On one hand, some of the most valuable and sought after Rolex are vintage models (i.e Double Red/etc). However, I also see a lot of "dealers" and "collectors" that will post offers for trades for "modern Rolex".

Pros/Cons?

Why do a lot of these dealers immediately rule out "vintage" trades? I'm perplexed.

Thanks!

landroverking · 1 June 2011, 12:07 PM

I think there is less of a market for vintage. These grey dealers are in it to turn a quick profit. Just a business.

HongNinja · 1 June 2011, 12:16 PM

That's what I was thinking. The TRUE watch/Rolex collectors APPRECIATE vintage and modern. I've talked to several oldschool Rolex collectors, and MANY prefer the vintage pieces due to the hand-crafted work that went into them back in the day. However, people looking to just make money, not interested. I'm alright with that. I'm more interested in conversing/dealing with the true watch collectors anyways.

Thanks for the input!

Speed · 1 June 2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HongNinja

Hey Guys,

Why do a lot of these dealers immediately rule out "vintage" trades? I'm perplexed.

Thanks!

Vintage is not for the faint of heart. So much could be altered / swapped out...makes it tougher to deal with in a trade. LNIB are much more liquid and values more easily determined. IMO.

HongNinja · 1 June 2011, 12:23 PM

I can see your points you made there. However, a lot of Rolex owners are pretty particular about where their watch was serviced/etc over the years. Most wouldn't let non OEM stuff like that end up in their watch, even 20-30 years ago. If everything is kept all OEM and original, I would side with vintage having a bigger upside. Assuming most vintage have that "issue" seems a little biased don't ya think?

I can see the perks on both sides, and I plan to own on both those sides as well. ; )

Speed · 1 June 2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HongNinja

I can see your points you made there. However, a lot of Rolex owners are pretty particular about where their watch was serviced/etc over the years. Most wouldn't let non OEM stuff like that end up in their watch, even 20-30 years ago. If everything is kept all OEM and original, I would side with vintage having a bigger upside. Assuming most vintage have that "issue" seems a little biased don't ya think?

I can see the perks on both sides, and I plan to own on both those sides as well. ; )

A lot of owners are particular. However, as you go vintage, you see far fewer box and paper combos...Besides, papers, boxes etc can be swapped even easier than watch components. Much can happen over decades.

springer · 1 June 2011, 12:26 PM

I believe many of the dealers stay in their comfort zone and aren't as knowledgeable with the vintage Rolexes, hence they just deal in the the newer watches.

slcbbrown · 2 June 2011, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HongNinja

I can see your points you made there. However, a lot of Rolex owners are pretty particular about where their watch was serviced/etc over the years. Most wouldn't let non OEM stuff like that end up in their watch, even 20-30 years ago. If everything is kept all OEM and original, I would side with vintage having a bigger upside. Assuming most vintage have that "issue" seems a little biased don't ya think?

I can see the perks on both sides, and I plan to own on both those sides as well. ; )

I think a lot of folks buy an expensive watch only once and don't pay a lot of attention to it, as long as it is working. Over a 20 to 50 year life there is plenty of time for some of these watches to get abused, modified, sold, etc. Many watches stay with their satisfied owner and never reach the market. Others get sold, pawned, stolen, over and over. Someone will try to "upgrade" a Rolex (add diamonds, sapphire crystal) so they can try to turn a quick profit. Some of these watches never really find a home-- they just keep recirculating in the market.

If you're trying to make a living by trading in watches, newer ones will allow for more volume selling with a lot less effort. New watches are all alike, while every vintage watch is unique.

slcbbrown · 2 June 2011, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HongNinja

I can see your points you made there. However, a lot of Rolex owners are pretty particular about where their watch was serviced/etc over the years. Most wouldn't let non OEM stuff like that end up in their watch, even 20-30 years ago. If everything is kept all OEM and original, I would side with vintage having a bigger upside. Assuming most vintage have that "issue" seems a little biased don't ya think?

I can see the perks on both sides, and I plan to own on both those sides as well. ; )

Double post.

dsio · 2 June 2011, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed

Vintage is not for the faint of heart. So much could be altered / swapped out...makes it tougher to deal with in a trade. LNIB are much more liquid and values more easily determined. IMO.

Think that's really where its at, modern you're dealing with fairly set market values but the variation in value for vintage and the tiny things that make a huge difference are amazing.

I remember there was a guy buying a vintage Daytona a while back, posted some pics of it, and I was literally about to reply something along the lines of "beautiful looking watch" when Ken and another guy noticed that some minute detail like a gear was wrong in the movement pic indicating it was not original.

If I'd have seen it in the flesh I wouldn't have questioned it for a moment, probably most wouldn't have either!

conrail · 2 June 2011, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slcbbrown

New watches are all alike, while every vintage watch is unique.

Piazza · 2 June 2011, 05:39 AM

I work in Bob Ridley's office, where we see lots of vintage. I would guess that one reason some might not deal in vintage would be hidden cost. Many, but not all, vintage pieces have accumulated levels of service need. Until Bob thoroughly examines the watches we receive, the full extent isn't known. This would mean that a vintage watch being sold/traded might need $2500 worth of work - or only $500.

Sometimes a buyer and a seller will ask us to estimate the service need/cost so they can accurately determine final pricing. This eliminates some of the "unknown" factor in the deal.

Paulie 50 · 2 June 2011, 06:47 AM

My own take on this very subjective question is that it's the Iconic status of the vintage, v the perceived association with celebrity, fame,success etc. of the newer models. Most Vintage watches, i assume, are not on the wrist of the original purchaser, that one fact alone can keep our minds and imaginations going for a long time, how we perceive the life that this very old watch has had, along with it's owner/s, is absolutely the key to enjoying Vintage. The simile with the " Stars " whether they be screen, sport, or any other type of person in the lime light, is one reason people will buy new, as well as maybe just rewarding themselves for their own success, but without doubt there is a difference, and it's a very emotive subject among WISs.

Singslinger · 2 June 2011, 09:35 AM

I think vintage Rolexes are wonderful timepieces, in many cases better looking than their modern counterparts and very collectible.

But they're not for everyone - apart from the risks associated with authenticity and the high expense involved, I'm not sure if they can be worn as daily beaters since damage could be very costly.

Michael M. · 2 June 2011, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slcbbrown

New watches are all alike, while every vintage watch is unique.

I agree

HL65 · 2 June 2011, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piazza

I work in Bob Ridley's office, where we see lots of vintage. I would guess that one reason some might not deal in vintage would be hidden cost. Many, but not all, vintage pieces have accumulated levels of service need. Until Bob thoroughly examines the watches we receive, the full extent isn't known. This would mean that a vintage watch being sold/traded might need $2500 worth of work - or only $500.

Sometimes a buyer and a seller will ask us to estimate the service need/cost so they can accurately determine final pricing. This eliminates some of the "unknown" factor in the deal.

Hi Barbara!! Never thought I would see you here! Welcome to TRF and hello to Bob!! There is nothing like vintage Rolex- forces you to be educated and well schooled or you will get schooled!!

Best-- Ken

HL65 · 2 June 2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singslinger

I think vintage Rolexes are wonderful timepieces, in many cases better looking than their modern counterparts and very collectible.

But they're not for everyone - apart from the risks associated with authenticity and the high expense involved, I'm not sure if they can be worn as daily beaters since damage could be very costly.

I wear vintage watches every day-- that is what they were made for! If you don't enjoy them- why buy them!!

cht · 2 June 2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed

Vintage is not for the faint of heart. So much could be altered / swapped out...makes it tougher to deal with in a trade. LNIB are much more liquid and values more easily determined. IMO.

I totally agree with this.

The question is not do people like vintage or is there a market for vintage, or is a vintage better than a modern rolex...different topic.

The basic question to be answered is how easily and definitively can we assign a standardized value, which is much easier with modern pieces.

Clay · 2 June 2011, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

I wear vintage watches every day-- that is what they were made for! If you don't enjoy them- why buy them!!

I just took my c.1977 1665 for a swim. As Ken said, that's what they're made for.

xela · 2 June 2011, 10:36 AM

Would there be a chance to stash some modern Rolex now and hope it end up as a NOS vintage in 30 years time?

theken · 2 June 2011, 10:36 AM

An important part of buying and selling vintage watches is matching the expectations of the buyer with the seller.
as stated above:
Originally Posted by slcbbrown
New watches are all alike, while every vintage watch is unique.

1 June 2011, 11:56 AM	#1
HongNinja Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: On Earth Watch: 228238, 114060 Posts: 1,347	Rolex Vintage vs Modern Hey Guys, I was just curious on your takes on the difference between "vintage" and "modern" Rolex timepieces. On one hand, some of the most valuable and sought after Rolex are vintage models (i.e Double Red/etc). However, I also see a lot of "dealers" and "collectors" that will post offers for trades for "modern Rolex". Pros/Cons? Why do a lot of these dealers immediately rule out "vintage" trades? I'm perplexed. Thanks!

1 June 2011, 12:26 PM	#7
springer 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: jP Location: Texas Watch: GMT-MASTER Posts: 17,319	I believe many of the dealers stay in their comfort zone and aren't as knowledgeable with the vintage Rolexes, hence they just deal in the the newer watches. __________________ Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics.

1 June 2011, 12:07 PM	#2
landroverking "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: TEXAS Watch: Daytona Posts: 7,648	I think there is less of a market for vintage. These grey dealers are in it to turn a quick profit. Just a business.

1 June 2011, 12:16 PM	#3
HongNinja Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: On Earth Watch: 228238, 114060 Posts: 1,347	That's what I was thinking. The TRUE watch/Rolex collectors APPRECIATE vintage and modern. I've talked to several oldschool Rolex collectors, and MANY prefer the vintage pieces due to the hand-crafted work that went into them back in the day. However, people looking to just make money, not interested. I'm alright with that. I'm more interested in conversing/dealing with the true watch collectors anyways. Thanks for the input!

1 June 2011, 12:23 PM	#5
HongNinja Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: On Earth Watch: 228238, 114060 Posts: 1,347	I can see your points you made there. However, a lot of Rolex owners are pretty particular about where their watch was serviced/etc over the years. Most wouldn't let non OEM stuff like that end up in their watch, even 20-30 years ago. If everything is kept all OEM and original, I would side with vintage having a bigger upside. Assuming most vintage have that "issue" seems a little biased don't ya think? I can see the perks on both sides, and I plan to own on both those sides as well. ; )

2 June 2011, 05:39 AM	#12
Piazza Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: Barbara Piazza Location: Euless, TX Posts: 23	I work in Bob Ridley's office, where we see lots of vintage. I would guess that one reason some might not deal in vintage would be hidden cost. Many, but not all, vintage pieces have accumulated levels of service need. Until Bob thoroughly examines the watches we receive, the full extent isn't known. This would mean that a vintage watch being sold/traded might need $2500 worth of work - or only $500. Sometimes a buyer and a seller will ask us to estimate the service need/cost so they can accurately determine final pricing. This eliminates some of the "unknown" factor in the deal.

2 June 2011, 06:47 AM	#13
Paulie 50 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Lancs. England Posts: 1,000	My own take on this very subjective question is that it's the Iconic status of the vintage, v the perceived association with celebrity, fame,success etc. of the newer models. Most Vintage watches, i assume, are not on the wrist of the original purchaser, that one fact alone can keep our minds and imaginations going for a long time, how we perceive the life that this very old watch has had, along with it's owner/s, is absolutely the key to enjoying Vintage. The simile with the " Stars " whether they be screen, sport, or any other type of person in the lime light, is one reason people will buy new, as well as maybe just rewarding themselves for their own success, but without doubt there is a difference, and it's a very emotive subject among WISs.

2 June 2011, 09:35 AM	#14
Singslinger "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: singapore Posts: 6,424	I think vintage Rolexes are wonderful timepieces, in many cases better looking than their modern counterparts and very collectible. But they're not for everyone - apart from the risks associated with authenticity and the high expense involved, I'm not sure if they can be worn as daily beaters since damage could be very costly.

2 June 2011, 10:36 AM	#20
xela "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Singapore Posts: 110	Would there be a chance to stash some modern Rolex now and hope it end up as a NOS vintage in 30 years time?

2 June 2011, 10:36 AM	#21
theken "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: USA Watch: GMT-Master II Posts: 3,417	An important part of buying and selling vintage watches is matching the expectations of the buyer with the seller. as stated above: Originally Posted by slcbbrown New watches are all alike, while every vintage watch is unique.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)