If you were told that a watch you were interested in buying was rebuilt with new old stock parts from a place like WatchCo Australia, wouldn't you know that means it's NOT ORIGINAL? Um, as in NOT EVEN CLOSE?

Just asking if this is common knowledge or can be figured out with common sense. Or does it require some kind of special master level watch-fu to understand?

Thanks!

 

An interesting question Dennis.

My take on this - and it is purely my opinion - is that there are 4 things that define a watch. The case/case back, the dial, the hands and the serial number. This serial number, which may be on the base plate or on a bridge, is what would (should) be on record at the factory as being matched to the case.

Any of the moving parts can/will wear and as such are consumable items, so to replace them is part of keeping the watch running. Let's face it, anything that does not identify the watch can be replaced and nobody would be any the wiser.

Provided that the four things I mention, above, are consistent, I would have no qualms about buying the watch and considering it to be legitimate.

Come to think of it, with most manufacturers, the case could be replaced and nobody would know as long as the case back was original.

As I said, this is just my opinion.

 

I guess it depends on your definition of the word "original." Does this mean OEM, meaning original Omega parts, or does this mean something more specific. It's pretty clear that people here consider original to be the parts that were "with the watch when it was made", but clearly not everyone sees it that way based on some of the sellers that have gotten into arguments here over this very subject.

Having been a member of many forums over the years, this one is the most strict with that definition that I have come across, which is fine. The one exception may be the vintage American pocket watch guys, who are purists right down to the original blued steel mainspring if it hasn't broken already. However I do question how anyone would know exactly how original a watch is, as Stewart mentions some parts you would have no idea if they have been changed or not. Even if a dial or hands look like they are original to the watch, there is no way to really prove this unless the watch was bought new and put in a drawer, never being serviced. In other words of a watch bought in the 40's say had some sort of incident in its first few years and parts like dial and hands were replaced with factory originals, I'm not sure anyone could tell with 100% certainty.

so the answer to your question depends on the context. I would not expect everyone to adhere to the very strict definition that most here assume.

Cherrs, Al

 

I guess I'm too much of a purist - which is strange because I accept factory redials if they're true to the original fonts. To me, "original" can only be used to describe a watch with all it's parts intact like it came from the factory (less normal maintenance replacement parts like a mainspring or gaskets). If the case, crown, dial, hands, etc. are replaced with genuine Omega parts the words "correct" and "authentic" would surely apply, but "original" is out the window IMO.

Thanks for the opinions guys!

 

I think i know what ulackfocus means, take a watchco sm300 it is as original as a refurbished proper example but the watchco example will always be a franken. An original sm300 that has been refurbed will be an original (provided you keep the original parts)
When you buy a car it may have had an aftermarket wing fitted to it, does this make the car a franken?
A watchco 300 is more like a homage to the original using omega parts and is a usable every day wearer with the confidence of parts backup. A good choice in my eyes.
An old omega that has had a redial when an original isnt available is still authentic to me, the only difference is you had to resort to aftermarket parts to keep it usable.
In omegas case if you had a badly beat up watch and only the movement is salvageable, and you replaced everything apart from the movement with nos parts its still authentic. Maybe not as desireable as a mint original but...

 

The term "Survivor" in the car hobby has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a brand name for Authenticating Certain Collectible Automobiles by Bloomingtom Gold, the benchmark judging venue for judging in the Corvette hobby.
Survivor, in the car hobby, has a very clear and distinct definition, set of standards, and process which must be met in order to be properly used.
Survivor does not mean no parts were ever replaced nor does it mean the vehicle was never serviced.

The SURVIVOR

® Award is designed to recognize those Corvettes that are "worn in, but not worn out." A SURVIVOR Corvette is significantly unrestored, unrepaired, or unmodified and meets these requirements: ​

​

• ​

  Is over 20 years old​
• Can pass a road test over 10 miles​
• Retains OEM engine​
• Remains unrestored, un-refinished, or unaltered;
  

  • 50% or more in three of four sections to attain SURVIVOR Bronze ​
  • 66% or more in all four sections to attain SURVIVOR Silver​
  • 80% or more in all four sections to attain SURVIVOR Gold​

  ​
• Retains finishes good enough to use as a color guide for restoration of a car just like it​

Judges inspect four components: Exterior, Interior, Under Hood, Chassis. ​

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c....php?link=trademark+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us​

 

Yes, to original question.

Obviously there's a diversity of views as to what Original means. IMHO it isn't original if the current state of the watch is not as it left the factory at least for the main or visible parts, such as dial, bezel ... Either way, descriptions should be clear, in a perfect world.

 

I am no doubt being more than a bit pedantic, but "original" to me means exactly as it was when it left the factory.

It is common practice for sellers to describe dial, hands, etc. as "original", when, on a watch decades old that may have passed through multiple owners, they couldn't possibly know.

 

A year ago I would not have known, and would not have cared. Today, I know, but I still don't care. With a lot of watches, the ONLY difference between truly original and a VERY GOOD FRANKEN is the provenance. The ONLY difference.

 

Huh?

What tha f?

Oh, it's OK.

I thought for a moment I was on WUSOF.

 

It seems to be a simple mix up in terminology. To most, a watch that has correct authentic replacement Omega parts is fine - which is pretty much what I was trying to find out.

Thanks guys!

 

A very well known and respected dealer once
answered a question I asked him about originality
with this -
'If you can't tell, what difference does it make...'
Which pretty much sums it up.

 

First of all it's not Chevy that trademarked and patented the use of the term
with respect to automobiles, it was Bloomington Gold, the organization.
If you read the link I posted, it discussed the fact that Bloomington Gold did Not want
to use it exclusively for Corvettes and has set up a process for all other marques
to set standards for "Survivor" classification.

And in this part

• Remains unrestored, un-refinished, or unaltered... ​

what counts is what underneath it, the degrees to which they are
unrestored, un-refinished, or unaltered

• 50% or more in three of four sections to attain SURVIVOR Bronze ​
• 66% or more in all four sections to attain SURVIVOR Silver​
• 80% or more in all four sections to attain SURVIVOR Gold​

The CBS show has nothing to do with cars.They aren't trying to remove the use of the term from general usage.

My point was, in the automobile hobby, Survivor does not mean no parts were ever replaced
nor does it mean the vehicle was never serviced, but rather, in the car hobby, one that has a
majority of it's original parts

 

It depends on who you are.

If you're the average (or above average) WIS collector it's a no brainer.

If you're a WIS Muggle, you could be told anything and you'd beleive it.

In the watch world, I consider "original" to be the way it left the factory in its entirety.

Should parts have been replaced for any reason, it's no longer original, although it would be perfectly acceptable to a collector providing provenence has been declared.

Just my humble perspective.

 

So you'd reckon that a watch which has a NOS "service" dial and a NOS "service" movement (with obviously a different serial number to the one which originally came from the factory, but the same calibre) could be described as 'authentic'? It's certainly not 'original'. I'm using for this example my Father's watch where the case, hands and crystal and bracelet are the only items which came together from the factory. To me it's no longer original but I'd like to be able to describe it as "authentic". Gives me a better feeling about it than to call it a "Franken".

 

WatchCO means awful frankenmonster that satisfies the modern need for a "repro" watch within a modern context of usability without any pretence as to its originality.

how much you're prepared to pay for any of the above is another question altogether.

the authentic/franken watch discussion is quite interesting. Here in Omega land (with access to Omegas quite detailed production records) you can have this sort of argument. In poor old Hamiltonville having this discussion is more difficult because production records don't often match what you see in your hand.

sometimes the best you can get over there is a movement and case matched to a specific year in production.

first world problems for sure