Although this pertains to modern watches, I am posting this in the vintage section because I suspect this is where I will get the most input, and it seems many modern watch enthusiasts are not keen on patina, so the patina lovers are here for the most part in the vintage section.

Most of us like to see nicely aged tritium markers on a vintage watch for example, but I wonder about watches that are not yet vintage that have this patina. Is it related to the specific model if the patina is seen as desirable? What I mean by that is Omega used tritium into the late 90's I believe, and I don't think most people here in the vintage forum would dislike a late 90's Speedmaster Pro that had discoloured markers. But what about a watch that has no real vintage history, so for example this SMP chronograph I was working on this past week?



The markers have quite a tint to them (I find patina to be hard to capture in photos to be honest - always looks darker in person), and the owner of this watch was contemplating having the dial swapped with a new one. We didn't end up doing it by the way. Note that although the dial is not marked as such, I do think these are tritium as they do not glow after being held under a lamp.

Now if this was a Speedmaster I would be telling them quite strongly that keeping the patinated dial in place is the best thing in terms of value, but what about on a watch like the SMP chronograph?

I see both SMP chronographs and 25318000 models with patina on the markers, so when people ask to have the dials changed, should I be saying hold off? Do we collectively think these dials will be desired in the future?

Now I always return the parts I remove to my clients, so if they take care of them they could be put back in the future, so even swapping a dial is not permanent, but I wanted to get the forum's input on this to help me guide my clients. I know no one can predict future value, but since many of these watches were made later on with Luminova dials, do we feel the tritium dials might be more highly valued down the road?

From a personal standpoint I am conflicted a bit. I actually don't like the patination as much on these modern watches as I do on a vintage watch (Speedy pro excepted), and I'm not sure why...

Looking for some input/opinions.

Cheers, Al

 

I personally like the natural ageing of a watch regardless of how old it is. Some watches I'll re-finish if the cases are in really poor condition, but unless the dial has suffered really badly through mishandling or dampness, I wouldn't consider changing it.

One of my favourite watches, this 1946 Omega bumper has a dial with bad age related staining. I have been running hot and cold about having the dial re-finished, but so far I can't bring myself to do it. If I could pick up another original dial for it, I would change it.

 

Hi Al,

There was a transitional time period in the 1997-2001 era in Rolex sports models, such as the Submariner, Sea-Dweller, and GMT-Master, where some watches had tritium, others had Luminova, before later settling on Super Luminova. The dials themselves were marked T SWISS MADE T for tritium, while the luminova & Super Luminova dials were first marked "SWISS", before settling on the now-current "SWISS MADE". The point to this is that there was a lot of variance during a relatively short transitional era in the late 90s, with both luminous material composition, and dial markings. So a similar phenomenon may be at play here.

There is a school of thought that says an owner should be free to do with his watch as he pleases. But, if a customer is asking you for guidance, usually that's coming from a less experienced person wanting to asking someone who has more experience, to help him better understand the implications of his decision. In this case, I'd advise the following consideration, based on what's seen with divers in the Rolex market: 14060 and 16600 Sea-Dwellers had a run of about 15 to 20 years each, split roughly 60/40 tritium vs. luminova. These are effectively "modern" watches, with sapphire crystal, WG surrounds, and gloss dial (all "modern", rather than "vintage" Rolex attributes); and, they were produced during an era when both tritium and luminova/SL were used. So this is probably a good example to look at:

Occasionally you find WTBs with posters specifically asking to buy a tritium watch. . .and where a pre-1998 Sub or Sea-Dweller pops up, buyers get more excited about original (tritium) dial and hands, than later luminova service replacements, as evidenced by quicker sales. It's not to the point that I see higher prices, just, a tritium model will sell faster than one with luminova or SL; and, a tritium-era model, which has had hands and dial replaced with a service-luminoval dial or hands, will take longer to sell, as it is no longer really differentiated from the 1998 and later models.

Additional guidance to offer for consideration if someone wants their watch to glow, and to enjoy all the benefits and technologies of a modern timepiece, is to consider, whether they've got the interest and budget to add a new acquisition. If not, then replacing dial and hands while returning the originals in a well packaged/protected state is a reasonable compromise, although another piece of advice regarding originality is that most watch owners who consider themselves watch enthusiasts, prefer to own (and purchase, on the used market), watches that are as they left the factory. . .including the quirks, drawbacks, and cons of the original technology, which can include lume with reduced or no more glow, and patina.

That's kinda how I've seen things go. Finally, if a dial is truly damaged, then that can make a compelling case for replacement outweighing other points. And, it we're talking a modern, current-production watch like a Speedmaster or PO with replacement dials or bezels that are indistinguishable from originals because the current-production parts are used as service parts, then none of this is a factor - replace at will.

I hope this helps.

 

I have a late 80's tag with yellowed markers, I wouldn't change them. It's not that I crave patina, it's that I see watches sort of like living objects, they keep time, so I like to see how they age and acquire character. I also like new watches. So before changing an old watches natural aging I can always buy a new watch. So I would leave it if it's natural, clean it if it's water damage or accidental, if that makes any sense.

On the pictures, try setting the exposure on the actual markers, they appear brighter because your focus point is probably centered on the dial, so everything that's brighter than the dial will whiten. By contrast, if you set the exposure point on the markers those will be accurate, but the darker parts of the dial will deepen. So seek even light and then look for a neutral gray or tone and set the exposure there, then recompose the picture framing to what you want. Also, if you notice, the background paper appears gray, si the white point is slightly off as well.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the reply first.

Of course - if you got anything different from my post, you have misread something there. As you well know, I work for the person who sends me their watch, and in the end no matter what my thoughts are. I'll do what they want me to in the end, or ask them to find someone else to do the work if I find the request to be particularly egregious (that rarely happens).

This is part of why I ask this question as I have noted above, to give people advice, because they do ask me quite often. Or if they want something changed, I will always tell them if I feel they are making a big mistake, but again the final decision is theirs, not mine.

But part of what I am getting at is that we see here often watches that have had service dials installed some time ago, because at that time the watch was not particularly valuable in a patinated state, just like your Rolex examples show. They may sell quicker, but are not really more valuable...yet.

If we were to go back and be able to tell those people in the past not to make that change, in many cases we would have more valuable watches today. Well today is the futures past. Sorry not really trying to make a confusing X-men movie title out of that.

So in your view, what is the feeling of future value of these dials?

Cheers, Al

 

Again, to me, If I am buying a watch that I now is 20 years old then I would not like it to be less than that, no matter the model. That's why I'm buying it.

 

Hi Al! I was just putting in that first sentence, to preempt a response from somebody else saying "LET THE OWNER DO WHAT HE WANTS!!" Of course at the end of the day, we all agree it's their call!

As for my feeling on future value, I think that Sergio's response above makes the point perfectly.

As for actual dollar figure for a loose dial, at this point I think it's entirely speculation. Back to Sergio's well-put response, I think that in this instance (and even in the instances of the Rolex Subs and Sea Dwellers cited originally), it's more that "the whole (with original dial) is greater than the sum of the parts", rather than being able to assign a discreet value to a tritium dial.

If push came to shove, I'd say that a loose tritium dial for this specific watch wouldn't be worth that much, because few people would probably be looking for one. One way to test the market is to list on eBay, because that gets you the purest market price: you get for your item, the most that someone is willing to pay for it. But I suspect that not that may people are out there, if any, who are SPECIFICALLY looking for a tritium dial for this watch, and thus, who would recognize, and bid aggressively to bring one in should one become available.

Mark

 

Sorry I must not be explaining this well - not talking about loose dials at all.

No worries.

Cheers, Al

 

Hey Al, obviously I'm not an expert, but here's what I've noticed. Originality probably comes close second to condition. I've noted threads where a vintage watch, one that looks really nice and in good condition, will be marked down in value if members detect a replaced dial, even if it was replaced long ago. The further back the replacement was done, the more acceptable it is, it seems. So for example, a watch from the 60's that had a dial replaced in the early 70's would be more acceptable than one with a dial replaced in 2010 for example.

I would theorize that any unnecessary replacement of aesthetic parts would be less desirable than originals. Replacement for necessity is, well, necessary.

In your shoes, I would probably caution people to maintain as much originality in the watch as possible and only replace what really needs replacing, needs being define as necessary for the watch to operate. Of course anyone can opt to ignore that suggestion, but I think that watch in your pics, in 20-30 years would be worth more with its original dial intact that with a service replacement, even if they are pretty much identical. I'm sure there will be 'rules' for spotting deviations among these moderns in the future when today is the past.

$0.02 CAD

J

 

I don't feel a 20 yo watch should look new. I'd suggest they leave it.

 

My modern watches are tools. I wouldn't like them to be less useful as they age because of the decay of the materials. However, fast forward 20-35 years and then what? Will the next owners appreciate the patina? I think they will, because you buy a vintage watch because of sentimental or romantic reasons, one of which is the feel of age on the piece.

 

As other have expressed, it boils down to personal preference. I do like the appearance of how this SMP has aged and would like to keep it that way!

Most definitely! I'd appreciate the suggestion/advice from anyone who is more knowledgeable in any field! I suspect the majority of those who own modern watches are relative younger and perhaps don't appreciate the "old looking" aspect of any article - this is something you learn to enjoy over the years..

 

My preference is to buy another dial either NOS or one that needs refinishing. Put the original in a safe place.

 

My take on this is that most modern watches are bought by non-WIS types and as such they won't be concerned by originality so they will, most likely, throw away the replaced parts, sell them on eBay or lose them over time. In 30 years time, the latest crop of WIS will curse them for doing that - just as we do now with the watches we look at buying.

If I was Al (and he's very lucky that I'm not) I would be tempted to ask the client if they want the replaced parts returned to them as the photo-documentary he gives them would demonstrate that the parts have indeed been replaced. I know that this might present storage problems but it would provide a treasure trove for generations to come. Think of all those used but original hands dials, crowns and pushers - obviously worn movement parts are bugger all use to man nor beast, but the cosmetic parts.......

 

Thanks for that, and I do understand that point. Not everyone takes this approach though in particular it seems with more modern models.

I'm actually more interested in when the current 20 year old watch is 50 years old. I guess I'm tying to see if people think patina will be valued as much (or maybe more) then as it is now. Of course no one will know for sure until the time actually comes.

Cheers, Al

 

I'd vote for yes, patina will be at least as valued as it is now. It's the 'proof' that the watch has seen the world.

 

In my experience, either bought by non-WIS types, or WIS types who like things to be shiny and new looking. This ?want it looking new" desire seems to be much more prevalent with those who buy more modern watches.

This same discussion about dials and hands could be had about case refinishing. People are far more likely to want a modern watch case/bracelet refinished than a vintage. My feeling is the current models that are "untouched" in the future will be pretty rare!

Oh, and thanks for the idea about the old parts!

j/k - of course I always return them.

Cheers, Al

 

At some point it's more decomposition than Patina...

 

Hi Al,
Thanks for bringing up this issue. I agree with much of what has been said by other members. Recall that much of what we consider favourable "patina" represents degradation of the original materials used in the production of the watch. Humidity, sunlight, heat, etc all contribute to that degradation in some form; also the variability of materials used.

This Connie dial was produced using some form of "varnish" which broke down and yellowed upon exposure to the elements, and for some of us that is valuable and desirable, and for others, repulsive. What will be considered desirable in the future will likely depend upon the way it appears. None of us would like to see green snot on a dial, nor black fungus on the movement, yet the break down of materials makes for exclusivity on some pieces (Rolex spider dials, chocolate or tropical dials) and in turn, contributes to value in some eyes. Interesting that the Graves Complication watch which recently sold for >$20 million has little patina, and has obviously been protected.
Full disclosure: I am firmly in the "more patina is better camp"...call me a "Kyletina" disciple!

 

But it's not about Patina or no Patina, it's about how much a watch is naturally aging without either accidental damage or restoration. If a watch is damaged it should be restored, if it is aged then it should be respected, like a good leather jacket.

As to the value of the modern pieces I think it probably depends on how mass-produced and popular those pieces are. I just got a liquidmetal LE PO, on itself a modern exclusive and limited edition watch. no idea how it will age, for all i Know these materials will survive a North Korean nuclear attack, but, "should" it age, and age well I would think the value of the watch would be attached to that process. I also have a new Seamster Pro...not sure that one will even retain it's value, patina or no patina. To me it's my beater watch. a good reliable watch that I don't care about. Much rather take that one to the beach and casual sweaty trips to the caribbean than the Rolex 5512 or the AT. Incidentally I took my speedy on my last trip with a leather band and that was a mistake on tropical climate with sandy winds, with for the hesalite and the strap...but I digress.

It was a surprise to me to notice my Tag from 1988 had a beautiful creamy patina on the dial markers, I never noticed it because I don't really notice that watch anymore...possibly because it's the watch I've had since I'm a kid. When I noticed it the last time I wore it it got me to smile a bit...after all, I have a little bit of a creamy patina myself at this stage, and it was like seeing a very old friend and realizing we've aged. Same for the 5512 Birth Year, I would not want it to look like a teenager when we're both on our forties.