What time is it? Watches and horology

Agreed. Ultimately it’s just a design decision as doesn’t necessarily have to “faux”.

Really enjoying this on a NATO. I haven't worn a NATO strap for years. Forgot how comfortable they are.

1 Attachment

Talking of comfort... the rat watch is finally 'finished'. Haven't worn it in months and the Casio dive strap was too inflexible.

Had a 20mm bracelet hanging around so took a little file to it. The lugs are horribly recessed, but the central polished part matches the case well. So much anti.

1 Attachment

The mrs has two of the Jl reversos the classic and a dressier double sided version very nice watches and a bit more unusual than a rolex

Bought my wife an oyster perpetual for her 30th (essentially the above but with no date) and she loves it.

Reverso is lovely too though.

Couldn’t agree more, except that omega have made 3557 each and almost all have been bought by collectors to “put away” so there’s practically zero scarcity for these. They won’t go up much in value IMO, certainly not soon.

I’m willing to bet that Tudor will do something else with their in house movement for Basel, and I heard a rumour of a black bay Chrono...

I stand corrected!

You’re absolutely right. The point of modern homage watches with faux patina, resurrected names and fake aged lume is totally lost on me. But hey, we don’t all have to like the same things. I’ve got a black bay because it’s waterproof (Which is occasionally useful), no other reason. Everything else is old. I don’t really understand your car analogy, the last car I owned was a 1969 Dino...

Edit. Ok I thought about this a bit more. The problem is that this constant ripping off of vintage designs is causing prices of vintage watches to skyrocket (and a whole bunch of consequential effects such as more fakes in the market). This makes my hobby much more difficult. Because this doesn’t affect those who are only interested in “new-old” watches (arguably most aren’t even aware), I can see how the approach to copying old designs is perceived as victimless, but it’s not.

JL Reverso.

The ladies version is lovely and elegant. Bit different too. Although personally I think it looks better on a leather strap - there's a tan crocodile one they do.

Will she be OK with having to wind it?

The best examples don't look too fake. The problem with just buying an old watch is the inherent difficulties surrounding that - condition, availability, cost.

I do agree with a lot of the sentiment though. Dammit eg of Singer is a good one - although it's a lovely car, it's trying too hard. The faux vintage watches that look a bit naff are the same.

The guy in the shop in Geneva where my wife got her reverso told her "we do a quartz version as the ladies don't like to wind watches"

Yes I think she will be ok with it, I meant there is no way I buy a quartz JL. Reverso should be manual imo. I absolutely love the reverso (to me it's a much nicer watch than the rolex), it's one of those I wanted for myself for many years but my watch interest has switched to bike and cars for a while now! However if I take my own taste out of the equation the rolex ticks all the boxes.

I agree on the leather strap, but a decent leather strap could be bought separately for not that much money (not JL obv). The steel strap cost a lots of money.

I think it really does come down to personal taste. I can't argue with anything you have said about the Reverso...it's a lovely watch. I just think the Rolex would look better on my wife's wrist and she would always choose the less feminine looking and more practical watch if given a choice.

For me, it's the Rolex every time.

You have nailed it...this is exactly my thought, rolex would look better on her wrist...and it's £600 cheaper, rather a considerable amount to spend on some bike parts!

Not having a second hand would also wind up Mrs Hedge.

Horses for courses though innit.

The steel strap cost a lots of money.

Hell yes and jl are really sniffy about fixing them, fortunately the little watch shop around the corner managed to fix it to get another year or two out of it before the wife had to drop, iirc, about a grand on a new one.

You’re absolutely right. The point of modern homage watches with faux patina, resurrected names and fake aged lume is totally lost on me. But hey, we don’t all have to like the same things. I’ve got a black bay because it’s waterproof (Which is occasionally useful), no other reason. Everything else is old. I don’t really understand your car analogy, the last car I owned was a 1969 Dino...

Edit. Ok I thought about this a bit more. The problem is that this constant ripping off of vintage designs is causing prices of vintage watches to skyrocket (and a whole bunch of consequential effects such as more fakes in the market). This makes my hobby much more difficult. Because this doesn’t affect those who are only interested in “new-old” watches (arguably most aren’t even aware), I can see how the approach to copying old designs is perceived as victimless, but it’s not.

That argument is based on people being unaware that there is a difference between a vintage watch and a new watch, which I suggest is untrue.

Do people think that these are the same car?

I'd say that they do not - and indeed, there is nothing that links them other than a) they're both designed as small city cars and b) common (although clearly not copied) design elements.

Yet they're both, unquestionably, a Mini.

I think it's Ok to ask your partner her preference for big purchases, I nearly dropped a bollock when I got engaged with a ring (had to take a Hatten Garden jeweller to small claims court to recover deposit). I periodically show my wife watches I think she'll like and never get it right. Personally I think the Rolex is more versatile and can be worn down the pub in a t-shirt.

Got a 25% code for Uniform Wares... C35 looks lovely but it's still £251 after discount.

I don’t think the car analogy is particularly helpful as new cars are obviously more reliable, faster, economical and safer than old cars; they perform their job better than the old one. This isn’t really true for watches, an old watch will do just as good a job as a new one.

So if both of the minis above functioned equally well:
Which has more character? Which is more charming?
Which has more provenance, more of a story attached to it?
Which is scarcer?
Which will be more expensive in 10 years time?
Which has a more rewarding purchase experience?
Which brings the owner more joy to own?

All the major watch brands know that they’re competing with the vintage market. So Omega using the name of an old watch somehow bestows on the new watch the same heritage identity, even though it obviously isn’t in any way the same at all. Or the little extra gifts you get (compared with the months spent building a relationship with a seller before I buy an old watch), or the artificial “scarcity” of “only” 3500 pieces and limited editions (omega still haven’t sold all their 50th or even 60th anniversary speedmasters).

I get that people know the difference between new and old, but still not why buy new. Warranty? Too fearful of buying a lemon?

Rolex and Omega sell 1 million watches a year each and still convince the public that their products are exclusive. Broadly speaking, Rolex do this by investing in their brand, and Omega by exploiting their brand.

^Just my humble opinion. YMMV. #buywhatyoulike

New Zulu for my daily Seiko. Changed from tan leather, quite like it.

1 Attachment

This gets into splitting hairs, given that these are all man-bracelets and the actual level of accuracy is more useful in pub based bragging than any other reality, but: would a 1970's Railmaster be waterproof to 150m, certified up to 15,000 Gauss, Metas certified as a Master Chronometer, and have a five year warranty on all of the above?

If yes, then your point holds - if no, then it doesn't.

By your description all vintage watches should be more expensive anyway then if everyone wants a vintage watch instead of a new one.

I'm not a watch expert, on this thread there's obviously some very knowledgeable people, you being one of them, but from an outsiders perspective it comes across like this:

"Enthusiasts" and "collectors" will want provenance. They look to vintage watches not because they're cheaper but they carry something special. Without putting words or even thoughts in anybody's mouth, I will wager that a % of people who wear a vintage watch of a very specific heritage or original purpose do so because they know, that other watch people who know, will know what they are wearing. So of course these watches will carry a premium.

To carry on @Dammit 's example, a 1970s 2.7 Carrera RS is worth 7 figures because it's an iconic Porsche 911. Sure, you can buy a brand new 911 GT3 RS but some people want that originality, that car from a time when cars smelt like petrol, gears whined and needed changing manually, the car moved about and required concentration to drive, and people cared about their cars.

So why are watch manufacturers making vintage looking watches? Not because some people are buying your run of the mill 1980s gold Seamaster, but because like the 7 figure 911, the proper lusted after watches are unobtainable. They're not trying to cramp the style of the buyer who is looking for a £500 bargain, they're enticing the buyer who can more than afford a brand new Omega, Rolex, or Tudor, but cannot fathom affording 18 milli for Paul Newman's Daytona.

The majority of watch purchasers, like the majority of car purchases want something new with warranty, they care not for heritage, or what ref vintage watch is worth close to 7 figures, they want to put a watch on, it to work, and if it stops working someone will fix it for free and quickly because it's an expensive watch.

If anything, to me it comes across like the more vintage style watches available new, then the less demand for vintage watches because those buyers who want something old but don't know enough to buy a good condition one successfully can just buy something new that looks like those old watches.

I bought my missus a Rolex DJ - the one I would've got compared to what she ended up with after a couple of hours in WoS was relatively different. It's also a fun experience going in and buying something lovely like a new watch, seems like a shame to not let her take part

So why are watch manufacturers making vintage looking watches? Not because some people are buying your run of the mill 1980s gold Seamaster, but because like the 7 figure 911, the proper lusted after watches are unobtainable.

Broadly agree with your post. But the main reason they're making new vintage is because of fashion trends, which then leads the marketing.

Watch manufacturers are just cashing in, like Barbour or Redwing do. Most of what I've read attributes this obsession with the knock effects on from the '07 Crash. With global growth up I wonder how much it will last?

The one curve ball with watches though is how many still make "old watches";

... to continue the car analogy its a bit like the way some British car models stayed they same for 30-40yrs - see OG Range Rover, Mini, Metro, etc.

EDIT: out if curiosity I tried to search and find out when "vintage lume" started. Came across this post which I thought hit the nail on the head in many ways;

We are told over and over by marketing materials and our fellow WIS, who are essentially marketing materials themselves, that mechanical watches are supposed to last generations. That's why we're supposed to be eager to pay so much more for them than quartz.

So the lume is supposed to fade on its own over the course of our lives (spent sitting at keyboards and occasionally strolling down to wherever our lattes come from rather than fighting wars and taming the ocean depths like the characters our watches are meant to evoke). Making that lume "vintage" in the first place is an attack upon our suspension of disbelief.