Jump to content
  • Sign Up to reply and join the friendliest Watch Forum on the web. Stick around, get to 50 posts and gain access to your full profile and additional features such as a personal messaging system, chat room and the sales forum PLUS the chance to enter our regular giveaways.

Your favorite vintage inspired watches?


Recommended Posts

For me, vintage in my collection falls in to two catagories:

1) Watches I really wanted and am prepared to pay to maintain (I have 2 birth year watches, an Omega Seasmaster and a Rolex Datejust. Both will be with me for the rest of my days irrespective of where my collecting future lies and I will always cover the costs to keep them straight)

2) Cheap little toys (I have a few little hand winding and auto's that cost me next to nothing, are worth next to nothing and owe me absolutely nothing, they are play things that I don't really consider part of my collection, they come and go but are just a bit of fun).

I'm unlikely to add to section 1, unless means and opportunity made an offer I couldn't refuse.

I will continue to amuse myself in section 2 from time to time (have a little Swissam 17j due to arrive soon that cost about twenty quid).

If I was able to maintain and service them myself to a competent degree then I might have considered more vintage purchases, but they (group 1) are a labour of love. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bricey said:

For me, vintage in my collection falls in to two catagories:

1) Watches I really wanted and am prepared to pay to maintain (I have 2 birth year watches, an Omega Seasmaster and a Rolex Datejust. Both will be with me for the rest of my days irrespective of where my collecting future lies and I will always cover the costs to keep them straight)

2) Cheap little toys (I have a few little hand winding and auto's that cost me next to nothing, are worth next to nothing and owe me absolutely nothing, they are play things that I don't really consider part of my collection, they come and go but are just a bit of fun).

I'm unlikely to add to section 1, unless means and opportunity made an offer I couldn't refuse.

I will continue to amuse myself in section 2 from time to time (have a little Swissam 17j due to arrive soon that cost about twenty quid).

If I was able to maintain and service them myself to a competent degree then I might have considered more vintage purchases, but they (group 1) are a labour of love. 

 

Well that wasn't helpful at all. Lol but okay, cool. I get it completely.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JayDeep said:

Well that wasn't helpful at all. Lol but okay, cool. I get it completely.

I just reread the original post with some (not all) of the sleep rubbed from my eyes.

My bad :laughing2dw:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now, that’s an interesting question. As you know, I have a couple of what might be termed long-term classics. My 2016 Cartier Tank looks pretty similar to the first models a century earlier. My 2017 Speedmaster Moonwatch looks pretty much like the originals worn over 50 years ago. Because they have maintained an unbroken pedigree and therefore attained longevity in production, they’re fine.
 

However, I’m not a fan of these modern watches dressed up to look like old watches in a larger case. Thinking particularly of certain models by Oris, and some updates/re-releases from the old catalogues of Longines and Tissot.

in general I’ve always supported the view that if you want a watch that looks like an old watch, you should buy an old watch. However, I understand your reservations about size, reliability and availability of parts.

Edited by AVO
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of brands have been pushing the "heritage" look in recent years.

I personally really like heritage looking divers, my CW C65 hits the spot for me, love the Longines Heritage diver and the Oris 65 (you search "vintage divers on EBAY and look how many little scratched up sicura's, timex and long forgotten brands had divers in the 60's and 70's that the above have closely followed).

Not sure that they tick some of your less traditional tastes though?

A lot of the other heritage range stuff seems more 'dress watch' though and again might not appeal.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AVO said:

Well now, that’s an interesting question. As you know, I have a couple of what might be termed long-term classics. My 2016 Cartier Tank looks pretty similar to the first models a century earlier. My 2017 Speedmaster Moonwatch looks pretty much like the originals worn over 50 years ago. Because they have maintained an unbroken pedigree and therefore attained longevity in production, they’re fine.
 

However, I’m not a fan of these modern watches dressed up to look like old watches in a larger case. Thinking particularly of certain models by Oris, and some updates/re-releases from the old catalogues of Longines and Tissot.

in general I’ve always supported the view that if you want a watch that looks like an old watch, you should buy an old watch. However, I understand your reservations about size, reliability and availability of parts.

Fair enough, because what you're not a fan of us exactly what I'm looking for. Lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bricey said:

CW C65 hits the spot for me

I have one of those too and it’s great. However, I think it looks generic enough to appear reasonably modern apart from the Caramac lume and stick hands. Certainly my version with the blue dial does.

1 minute ago, JayDeep said:

Fair enough, because what you're not a fan of us exactly what I'm looking for. Lol

Then I would definitely check out the three brands I mentioned; they have quite a lot of variety in that genre.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AVO said:

I have one of those too and it’s great. However, I think it looks generic enough to appear reasonably modern apart from the Caramac lume and stick hands. Certainly my version with the blue dial does.

Agree, I feel that it looks clearly like a "new" watch, but one that has its styling based on those older designs.

I'm scratching my brain to try and remember the brand, but I recently went down a rabbit hole of divers that had been aged and faded to actually look old (but were brand new) and that is something I find a bit odd.

I want vintage inspired but new shiny watches, appreciate that won't be everyone's preference, but it works for me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, AVO said:

I have one of those too and it’s great. However, I think it looks generic enough to appear reasonably modern apart from the Caramac lume and stick hands. Certainly my version with the blue dial does.

Then I would definitely check out the three brands I mentioned; they have quite a lot of variety in that genre.

I have, not really impressed or into. I guess I'm going for something less seen, microbrand like that would fit the bill.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JayDeep said:

Dig vintage look, but not so much vintage problems and lack of life left in them. Suggestions?

Problems aren't necessarily part of collecting vintage watches as parts for many movements are still available. As Avo says the Moonwatch is a good example, but the same applies to watches with many ETA movements, like the Unitas 6497/6498, which have been around since the nineteen fifties and are still being fitted to many new watches. So parts for those are easily available while they are being serviced.

I get what you feel, but I look at it this way, that whatever watch I buy, new or vintage, servicing is going to be part of ownership as it is with say, a car, If I buy a vintage watch I just ensure that it's relatively easy to get serviced. One benefit of vintage too is that if they often they will hold value well. A new watch generally, like a car, tends to lose value as soon as you walk out of the AD and takes a time to recoup.

I think that if you like the 'vintage' look, go for vintage, cost in servicing if necessary, and I think you'll find how cost-effective it can be at times, especially if you know how and where to get pieces serviced to a good standard and these days that's not hard ....

My earliest Moonwatch is from the nineteen sixties and I wouldn't swap that for a modern version and it appreciates in value and is easily serviced. Watches can be owned for a long time and still have decades of life in them. Perhaps it may be worth looking at the originals of some of the designs that you like.

  • Confused 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, artistmike said:

Problems aren't necessarily part of collecting vintage watches as parts for many movements are still available. As Avo says the Moonwatch is a good example, but the same applies to watches with many ETA movements, like the Unitas 6497/6498, which have been around since the nineteen fifties and are still being fitted to many new watches. So parts for those are easily available while they are being serviced.

I get what you feel, but I look at it this way, that whatever watch I buy, new or vintage, servicing is going to be part of ownership as it is with say, a car, If I buy a vintage watch I just ensure that it's relatively easy to get serviced. One benefit of vintage too is that if they often they will hold value well. A new watch generally, like a car, tends to lose value as soon as you walk out of the AD and takes a time to recoup.

I think that if you like the 'vintage' look, go for vintage, cost in servicing if necessary, and I think you'll find how cost-effective it can be at times, especially if you know how and where to get pieces serviced to a good standard and these days that's not hard ....

My earliest Moonwatch is from the nineteen sixties and I wouldn't swap that for a modern version and it appreciates in value and is easily serviced. Watches can be owned for a long time and still have decades of life in them. Perhaps it may be worth looking at the originals of some of the designs that you like.

I hear you but I think the opposite. I'm not interest in buying something outdated that parts are no longer being produced for. That's built in obsolescence, no thanks. Or buying used something that you can still gets parts for but had already seen a couple hundred thousand miles and maybe had another hundred left at best. I'd much rather buy new using common parts and new parts. Sorry I work in car industry, I know reality of these things, you never buy used, always a bad idea. Set up for failure so to speak. If you've got the money you buy new.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, JayDeep said:

I hear you but I think the opposite. I'm not interest in buying something outdated that parts are no longer being produced for. That's built in obsolescence, no thanks. Or buying used something that you can still gets parts for but had already seen a couple hundred thousand miles and maybe had another hundred left at best. I'd much rather buy new using common parts and new parts. Sorry I

work in car industry, I know reality of these things, you never buy used, always a bad idea. Set up for failure so to speak. If you've got the money you buy new.

The point I was making is precisely the opposite in that parts are still being produced for many vintage movements in watches and that unlike cars, watches don't have built in obsolescence. In fact, it's a shame that they don't make cars more like watches, capable of lasting many decades with the minimum of care.

The fact that you work in the car industry probably says a lot about your attitude towards watches, where you prefer new and like to keep changing models. Watches have never had that ethic, Patek, for example, sell their watches on the basis of them lasting for generations, not just decades. I can send my nineteen sixties Moonwatch in for a service and get it back running perfectly with a two-year warranty, try that on a fifty-year-old car. :)

We collectors aren't like the average man in the street, they tend to buy a watch, and it often lasts them decades, if not a lifetime. I don't really subscribe to the throw away society, I prefer to buy well-made things that last.

  • Confused 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bricey said:

I'm scratching my brain to try and remember the brand, but I recently went down a rabbit hole of divers that had been aged and faded to actually look old (but were brand new) and that is something I find a bit odd.

Out Of Order (OOO)?

https://outoforderwatches.com/

Could do worse if you really want that vintage look in a new watch. Bit much for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, artistmike said:

 

The point I was making is precisely the opposite in that parts are still being produced for many vintage movements in watches and that unlike cars, watches don't have built in obsolescence. In fact, it's a shame that they don't make cars more like watches, capable of lasting many decades with the minimum of care.

The fact that you work in the car industry probably says a lot about your attitude towards watches, where you prefer new and like to keep changing models. Watches have never had that ethic, Patek, for example, sell their watches on the basis of them lasting for generations, not just decades. I can send my nineteen sixties Moonwatch in for a service and get it back running perfectly with a two-year warranty, try that on a fifty-year-old car. :)

We collectors aren't like the average man in the street, they tend to buy a watch, and it often lasts them decades, if not a lifetime. I don't really subscribe to the throw away society, I prefer to buy well-made things that last.

I don't trust old movements really, I just don't. I want to, but I can't. They are mechanical, just like a car (used to be). I've had old watches that I bought, claimed to be recently serviced and running perfect, had to have serviced upon arrival, they are usually a few hundred to double that. So what really matters is what watch you're buying. Is it worth that on the market or to you. To me, definitively no! To the market, I don't care. I don't sell watches, I give them away or keep them. So maybe that's where the disconnect is here. I see you talking about a $4000 Omega, but I'm not. I would never pay anywhere near that for a vintage piece. I almost did recently, for a grail, but quickly realized what a terrible idea that was and didn't buy. Maybe if I could service them myself it would be a different story. I cannot. I will not. I don't have the time.

So as far off track at this has gotten...

I'm asking for vintage inspired. It's simple, truly. I don't want vintage. I'm always disappointed with vintage, every time. They're too small, too old looking, too old smelling, too thin, too everything not my style or desires. And because it's my money, that's okay for me to say. So either you have suggestions or you don't, but don't mistake my decision to avoid actual vintage as one not thoroughly thought through and deliberated. Trust me, it is and then some.

6 minutes ago, Perlative Cernometer said:

Out Of Order (OOO)?

https://outoforderwatches.com/

Could do worse if you really want that vintage look in a new watch. Bit much for me.

Oh buddy no .. hell no!!! That name can jump off a cliff. It will never muck up my collection that's for sure.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Perlative Cernometer said:

Out Of Order (OOO)?

https://outoforderwatches.com/

Could do worse if you really want that vintage look in a new watch. Bit much for me.

Its Parnis I was thinking of, loads of them listed on Ebay with "faux patina" :sign_wtf:

Why buy a new watch that has just been scuffed up to look old? Just buy a new watch and let one of my kids wear it for about 11 minutes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprisingly out of my vintage/old stuff. Beat up old Ratary watches have stood up well. They all remain extremely accurate, usually better than 5 seconds a day, and, although I've never required any, spares seem to be cheap and plentiful, and they don't have to be sent to a "special man" to get serviced. Maybe they don't have the same cache as "superior" brands, but you can pick them up cheap enough.

large.20200722_085846_kindlephoto-70994642.jpg.304df2969a5afe1bb09fd99603440595.jpglarge.1612084187909676834753326542356.jpg.435579808ab2538cfa3bdf09fb8c0717.jpg

43 minutes ago, artistmike said:

try that on a fifty-year-old car.

 it is entirely possible, and straightforward. :yes: If your pockets are deep enough.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bricey said:

Its Parnis I was thinking of, loads of them listed on Ebay with "faux patina" :sign_wtf:

Why buy a new watch that has just been scuffed up to look old? Just buy a new watch and let one of my kids wear it for about 11 minutes.

 

I said vintage inspired, not scuffed up to have a faux patina. I don't like patina at all. I want my watches to look new without question.

5 hours ago, SolaVeritate said:

How about skipping all the problems then and buying a vintage watch with the look you like then having the movement replaced by it's modern equivalent. 

Best of both worlds and unique to you.

Not quite that easy or simple. As I pointed out earlier, older watches tend to run smaller and today's movements tend to run bigger.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SolaVeritate said:

How about skipping all the problems then and buying a vintage watch with the look you like then having the movement replaced by it's modern equivalent. 

Best of both worlds and unique to you.

This. If you kept the original movement you could flip it and give a future buyer the choice.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Grand Old Duke said:

This. If you kept the original movement you could flip it and give a future buyer the choice.

Lol I don't think you guys are getting it. I don't want old movements or old cases all patina'd up. I want new, but vintage inspired. It's like reading comprehension across the pond is very lacking. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JayDeep said:

It's like reading comprehension across the pond is very lacking. Lol

Oh, please don’t tar us all with the same brush, old boy. Some of us do understand the intricate and arcane ramifications of the demotic Anglo-Saxon, post-Norman tongue.

But on the whole I agree. It would be better indeed were people to read threads before contributing to them.:biggrin:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...