Aesthetics vs. Originality...

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.

I agree completely - the use of art is in it's viewing, where things that are not art have other purposes, whether they be watches , guitars, etc. Also, art is more for public consumption, where the watch is not (aside from us geeks looking at photos on watch forums), so for my watches, there is no viewing public like there is for art. I don't care what someone I might show the watch to thinks about it's condition - what is important is what I think about it.

I keep saying this in discussions about what Omega will do with a vintage watch, but here even more so than with art, the owner of the watch is the one who should decide what gets done. Whatever is right for the owner is right.

And I have had art restored in the past so have gone through that process. I was very happy that the damage was repaired, because as Buckeyes#1 has said, it restored the intent of the artist, and also preserved it so it would last into the future and not deteriorate further. I've done the same having old documents conserved. When watch companies start seeing their massed produced products as art, they are taking themselves too seriously IMO.

Cheers, Al