Being new to all this, I am at constant risk of making a fool of myself. But you learn by asking questions, so here's a question :
'Stick' writing on Rolex Submariners. I see this described as rare, sought-after and so on; but reading TZ I am left with the suspicion that this different font is nothing but minor variations in routine production. If I read the experts correctly, Rolex would use several suppliers for watch faces. Some would have very minor differences in production, but within a standard format.
Is that 'it'? Is all the fuss about trivial fluctuations in production runs? Why would anyone pay for trivia like that, it's not even rare is it?
So, have I got this all wrong? It's a new world to me, and I want to understand.
You're right - it's just production variances during a models lifetime. Some things are more desirable than others to some people, including collectors, and so they would pay more for certain models with certain attributes.
Not everyone has to "get it" - if it doesn't interest you then just turn away
Forget getting it. Banknotes are not actually worth anything, it's just our mutual agreement to value them as such that gives them any value. In precisely the same way, if a community of experts have a set of clear criteria by which one Rolex is worth X to them and another is worth Y then that is what they are worth. Value will fluctuate according to the usual economic variables. This has nothing to do with Rolex and everything to do with rarity, popularity and the spending power of the community.
See also
http://blog.fromjapan.co.jp/en/anime...-all-time.html
As has been said many times this is a very "funny" market and if it does not interest one or you just do not get it then just move on if however you wish to get involved then do the research and be careful very careful.
I have a sort of weird fascination with all this, because it is so irrational; But I suppose you either have a 'collector 'menality or you don't. I'd never have the nerve either, because there are so may pitfalls. As for people buying such watches on the basis of a photo and description on E-bay....how risky is that!Originally Posted by mart broad
Surely it is the same in every hobby or interest - what is the use of a sheet of postage stamps with the Queen's head missing - you can't even use one to post a stamp; or a first edition of a book - it contains exactly the same story as the 2nd, 3rd or nth edition.
If it seems a little crazy at times, remember that some stamps are incredibly valuable simply because they have a fault on the printing! It doesn't always have to make sense. However in the world of subs there are some variations that you come to appreciate, and not just because they're rare. I've never been a sub man myself, but some of the photos on this forum have really shown me the appeal of that little bit of red writing, or faded lume, or ghost bezel. Some will still leave you (and others) scratching their heads, but search for some of the great pictures and it's hard not to get sucked in, even if you're not big on subs yourself. There are some great photographers here, and I'm also remembering a jaw dropping SOTC with many ghost bezel subs and vintage DJs, I'm afraid I've forgotten who's it was, perhaps someone can remind me.
Agree with others. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if the beholder has the funds he buys beauty. To me there's a lot about Rolex that i just don't get (for example why red printing is so sought after) but like most of us here, I know what I like and if finances permit, then I might well buy it. If not then I won't.
Rob
It doesn't need explaining.
You either get it or you don't.
You have got it right -these are minor variations over the years.
And, yes- the fascination is irrational at some level.
But, I can't remember last time somebody claimed this was a rational hobby.
Duplicate post - sorry. Bloody computers....
Last edited by Barryboy; 27th February 2016 at 14:01. Reason: Duplicate
It's irrational to have more than one watch of any description. We are a very, very small community of geeks.
F.T.F.A.
This should be a sticky.
Answers near all questions asked on this page.
You are Yoda.
Fair enough, and no doubt true; but at least we are geeks with a nice watch .
Speak for yourself. 8 nice watches here.
I would recommend the OP to visit sites like the following and study the various watches. I am sure that after a few hours a Paul Newman Daytona and a Mark 2 DRSD with tropical dial and thin case will be high on his wants list.
http://www.doubleredseadweller.com/
Thanks; a friend has a nice 5513, that's what I would have if (a) I had the money and (b) enough expertise to choose safely and well. The whole subject seems a minefield for the unwary. I have a 114060, which I bought because I lack the nerve for the vintage game.
+1 & the same applies to all areas of collecting.
I collect old army knives, why do I want similar ones from different years or similar ones with differing handles etc? Because to me there's a difference between them that I can appreciate- however to the average Joe I probably appear mental & they'll think what's the point but I (& like minded people) can see the point.
There is no logic, it's just what "floats your boat" :-)
I appreciate that you don't yet have access to sales corner, but a stunning gilt dial 5513 from 1966 has been listed this afternoon for £10k. Once you have the time in and the number of posts you will have access to such watches, which carry a much reduced risk to buying on the likes of e-bay or gumtree.
I too used to question the rationality of many parts of this hobby - and much of it, like any compulsive disorder, is totally irrational.
Is what it is.
Exactly. I moan at the missus for spending £20 on shampoo and £50 every three weeks on her nails. She then looks at my watch box, and I shut up.
Sounds to me like you are at that Rolex-curious stage. Or maybe vi(ntage)-curious. A bit appalled and a bit fascinated. Nothing wrong with that but I bet you won't be happy until you've tried it once :)
At least with a bit of research here you shouldn't have any regrets. Good luck.
Loving my 69' 5513.
Yes, that could turn-out to be correct. Should have stuck to my GS quartz. That'l teach me....or not. Probably 'not.' We have to suffer to learn.
In the eyes of the average person, spending £300 on a watch is considered a little bit silly. Spending £5000 on a watch is asylum material...It's all in the eye of the beholder.
In the end, value is what a fool will pay for it.
Let me add to your confusion.....Spider dial
Spider, tropical, ghost, albino etc etc. All these describe the effects of aging for which sellers place premiums on.
It's the planet's wealth trying to find somewhere to park itself, as all the usual places have rubbish returns or are governed by retarded rules. With all that cash sloshing about, and nowhere to go, it finds itself basically inventing demand.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Theirs rather a lot more going on than simply the price of any item be it a watch or car for eg.
If money is absolutely no concern then you will see just what baubles they will buy,and the opposite,well they have far less if any expensive baubles.I know which side of the private jet lounge I'd rather be on.
Nothing wrong with asking the question but surely it's one about collecting per se, not about vintage Rolex; if you're not a collector you won't "get" it. As for value, whether anyone thinks it's daft or not is academic - the only thing that matters is that the value is retained, or enhanced... in the case of vintage Rolex, it is.
The bezel of the 5513 on the SC is making me realise where they got the fantastic blue for the Tudor Black Bay bezel from
Great website, thanks for sharing
Amazing isn't it?
Old and faulty becomes rare therefore desirable. Collecting pristine examples of anything really, whether already old or taking a gamble for the future I get, worn out / knackered I don't.
But hey each to their own, if the things you do give you pleasure and you're not hurting anyone or anything, then why the heck not?
I couldn't agree more! An upside down plane on a stamp makes it worth a fortune - but it's just an error at the end of the day.
I collect old toys as well, and it's exactly the same with them - some people put huge value on 'variations' which wouldn't have been even noticed back in the day, and are usually just one factory applying paint in a marginally (very in some cases) different way. Collecting anything can be a bit like that - even vintage Rolex.
What do you do once you have the major watch variations (submariner, sea dweller, explorer etc)? Give up and call it 'complete' or seek out increasingly minor variations? Each to their own.
It would be interesting to find out how many folk have dabbled in watch collecting and then given up and what percentage are lifelong hobbyists. My main hobby is hifi - equally nerdy - but has lasted a lifetime. Other passions eg stamps, coins have been more passing fads. Whilst this forum is fascinating I don't think I'll become a collector as I've got two and thinking of selling one which isn't a good omen.
I guess some of the Rolex vintage collecting is a little bit silly. I do not mean the well known models like Red Submariners, Double Red Sea Dwellers, Paul Newman Daytonas etc but minor variants such as rectangle dial GMTs or even stick dial which do seem (to me) rather silly.
I've been a hi fi guy for 40 years! I suppose these things attract a certain type of personality. At the moment, I'm bored with hi fi and more intrigued by watches. It's a whole new world, and with lots of interesting things to learn. I have a sneaking suspicion it is becoming my main hobby. All good fun really. At least it isn't antiques (although, vintage watches.....)
I think before writing it off as silly, it's important to see some examples where watches have aged in an achingly beautiful fashion, and just look cool in a way that a brand new watch could never quite manage. Or to see a variation where a small detail really does mark the watch out from the crowd, and would mean you'd chose it if you had the chance. Then of course there are examples where they have aged, but not beautifully at all, or have some minor variation which may be rare, but isn't especially attractive or interesting. Obviously there's a cut off point where it's no longer beautifully aged stilton, it's just mouldy old cheese, but it's far too easy to condemn things as silly and pointless, simply through never having seen that one example that makes the point clear. This thread could probably do with a lot more pictures...
Even the term vintage is open to interpretation with the usual disagreements. In Rolex terms a healthy number of people agree vintage to mean 30 years old, a model number with only four digits and one that is no longer in production in that format. The latter of the three is the tricky one as all the sports models have morphed over years through different model numbers to the range currently for sale today in every AD.
An earlier poster cited examples like Red Subs and SDs and Paul Newman Daytonas as being more understandable than a watch that is now desirable for some minor printing change. I can give you an example of desirability for very little change.
print screen windows xp
The example above is only 25 years old, so some may cry foul on vintage status, but it is a desirable watch because the inlay in the 3, 6 & 9 markers is in black rather than white and the text detail on the dial is in silver rather than white. The watch is referred to as the Explorer "black out".
It was only produced for a very short time from late 1990 / early 1991 and examples are extremely scarce these days. To put it in context, a second hand black out will usually cost more than a brand new Explorer 1 bought from an AD - complete madness I know, but which is the most likely to retain or increase in value.
Just to balance the vintage arguement, when you buy that brand new watch - 20% of the purchase price is sent straight to George Osborne.
Last edited by Wallasey Runner; 29th February 2016 at 17:35.
The Rolex 'blackout' Explorer commands a price premium purely because it's relatively rare and that makes it desirable to some people. I guess there's a small minority who find it aesthetically more appealing than the conventional design, but most who yearn for one will want it simply because it's hard to find.
Over the years Rolex have made relatively few case designs and different models (compared to others such as Omega) and there almost seems an obsession with amplifying very small differences into something bigger. In this case, it's a minor difference with a dial, an item that's easily swapped from one watch to another. It's a trivial difference, yet it's somehow been afforded mythical status.
I don`t dislike the vintage Rolex models with acrylic crystals etc, but I`d never get caught up in the 'vintage Rolex' hype. The watches simply don`t differ sufficiently from the later versions to make them a completely different (and therefore more desirable) beast to my eyes. Much of the appeal seems to lie in the visual ageing of the things (bezels that've turned blue etc) and that's the bit I find hard to like. If I came a cross a 5513 Sub that looked as it did on the day it was sold I`d be interested in owning it, I quite like the softer look of the crystal and the dial design, but such a watch doesn`t exist (or is unlikely to turn up). Instead, people get all dewy-eyed about aged dials,hands, bezels that've turned blue, and cases that could do with a dose of refinishing to smarten them up. That's the bit I don`t get. Similar comments could be levelled at the Omega Speedmaster mooonwatch, which differs very little today from the 1960s models if we're honest about it.
Given the strength of support on this forum for vintage Rolex, one could be forgiven for thinking that appreciation of such things is an aspiration, a hill to be climbed, a destination to be arrived at after undergoing the rights of passage afforded by owning lesser watches. To anyone who feels that they HAVE to undertake this journey I can assure them they don`t.
To all those who 'don`t get it' and are worried that they're not even starting to get it, worry not.....you're in good company!
Paul
To some degree the vintage Rolex watches are true, they represent a moment in time, that's how they were sold in the shops back in the day. I struggle with the likes of Omega that nearly every moon watch is a limited edition - go on e-bay and search Omega limited edition and there are loads of them. Are they trying to create the collectable of tomorrow or panic the buyer of today into buying something special and scarce.
Don't get me wrong, I love the moon watches - I just question Omega's marketing strategy.
^
A huge and fundamental difference between Rolex and almost every other company in the industry is that they're structured as a private trust and don't have short-term-gain-seeking shareholders to answer to.
The rest have a lot of difficulty resisting the temptation to over-indulge on the cheese, which tends not to be healthy in the long run.
Omega have milked the limited edition thing to death in recent years, on that I can agree.
However, there's FAR more to vintage Omegas than the Moonwatch. The sheer diversity of models produced means that a prospective collector is never short of choice; by that I mean different models rather than minor detailed variations of one particular model. My own collection includes 50s Seamasters, 60s Seamasters, a 70s Geneve, a couple of late 60s Dynamics, a 70s Constellation , a pie-pan Constellation.......all are different watches and each has it's own appeal. No-one could say they all look alike. Ironically, the whole collection is worth no more than a couple of battered vintage Subs, and my watches look pretty much the same as the day they were sold.
As for the 'Limited Edition' recent Omegas, I`ve had a couple of 007 Bond Seamasters in to refinish and service; left me totally cold, just another SMP in my opinion......but in one case the owner had paid a hefty premium to get the watch and it was a very mediocre example.
Paul
To me they really do differ enough to be completely different - different enough that one of the two, I'd gladly wear and would feel pretty damn good about it, while the other I've never had the slightest interest in. I think a lot of people feel the same. It's just a question of which of the two they'd choose...
Sorry, but the above to some degree the above sums up this debate. We are all different and rightly so and like different things and that is great for the watch world and enthusiasts alike. I disagree with Paul to some degree that being into vintage Rolex is some sort of rights of passage - if you don't like vintage watches and view them as something that your Dad or Grandad would have worn then that is fine. New watches perform better, have the benefits of warranty cover and do what it says on the tin - buy a new Submariner and dive with confidence, buy a mark 1 meters first red Submariner from 1969 and it will probably spend most of it's time in a safe.
There is no right or wrong here and we shouldn't attach labels to people who appear to be on the opposing side of our own personal opinion.
I have owned several vintage Rolex and flipped most including, an early Matt dial 16800 Submariner, an 18ct yellow gold and blue Submariner, a Mark 1 1665 Great White SD and a 1665 Mark 3 DRSD and my latest purchase is that black out Explorer 1 - so it is clear which camp I am in. However, you guys have ground me down and the watch below has seriously got me thinking about switching camps.
screenshot on pc
Last edited by Wallasey Runner; 1st March 2016 at 15:40.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
