Or...you vs. the viewing public. I was speaking to an art restorer, and mentioned that with watch collecting, most prefer original parts over replacements, all things being equal. But what if all things are not equal? I know it's on a sliding scale for each individual collector, but when does that DON bezel look so tired that the newer iteration just brings the whole aesthetics of the watch up a notch? He made the point that with art, one of the highest ideals is bringing back a damaged piece to it's originally intended presentation. And, the quest is to use as original materials as possible. HOWEVER, in lieu of that, the closest materials to the original will be used, and here's the reason: the enjoyment of the piece, by the greatest number of people, seems to be the goal, rather than to leave it as is. So, if you're walking around with a tattered Speedy that you like because all the parts are original, what do you think about the person you show it to, who thinks, hmm, that's a pretty banged-up watch. But, had you replaced that bezel, those sad Tritium lost-hands, and gave the case a gentle polish, that person might say, "Hey, what a great-looking watch for being 40 years old." It's like those barn-find cars: do we really love the 30 year-old dirt, and don't we all appreciate them more when they are spiffed up a bit? Anyway, may be apples to oranges to the art and car world, but what is that magic point for you balancing originality vs. aesthetics? M'Bob.