Ed White: is it a crime?

Most collectors would agree that any watch that has historical significance because it marks an important event, era, use, etc. should not be altered from the status or condition that came about as a result of that occasion.

But what about a watch that, in its own particular long history, has had many owners, repairs, and uses, most of which cannot be identified or documented. When you obtain a watch like that, do you have a duty to preserve it in the state you receive it in?

To wit: the Ed White Speedmaster below has a lot going for it: nice A1 crown, the dial and hands are very clean, the bezel so-so, and the lugs unfortunately have the typical Rolex satin finish that was applied to the tops, that was never originally on the watch:



In that regard, getting the lug tops restored to their closer-to-original finish presents no ethical dilemma:



But what about the bezel? Here we have an interesting Ed White from the same era: this has its lume almost completely missing, and replaced hands, but look at that nice bezel. Hard to say what happened here, but a guess is that it was never knocked around much, but perhaps encountered some water damage, which might explain its particular set of deficits. The other watch, in comparison, clearly got banged around, but not water ingress likely. The problem, of course, is that most often, you just can’t be sure.



So, it occurred to me that this bezel’s condition is much more commensurate with the overall status of the first watch, and would improve its aesthetics and presentation more than leaving on this watch would bring it up. Here it is:


So, is it a collector “crime”? I think not.

Was being hyperbolic. A violation of the collector’s credo, if you will.

Yes, yes it is a crime, punishable by confiscation. You now need to send the watch to me for proper disposal.... 🙄

What you are doing is optimizing... when done well (and subtly) it does improve a watch and is undetectable. It also has the unfortunate side effect of creating "dogs" by symmetry. The ratty parts end up on lesser watches making them rattier...

You are quite correct. The watch I swapped it from looks less appealing now. More likely that I will wear it with impunity. That’s one upside...

it makes the perfect pair, a beautiful dress watch that will look well in a suit, and a rough and ready piece that will look cool with a pair of jeans and a teeshirt.

What about spring bars?
Are you using original/ correct or throwaway’s?

Indeed, so this is partly back to the "original" or "correct for the period" which are 2 different things entirely.

I think you are correct. We may not want to admit it, but deep down, we may anthropomorphize these items on some level.

Sorry, not following. When Omega assembled the watch initially, it would have been with original parts...those are by definition the original parts.

I went through a similar “ethical” dilemma with a lovely Speedmaster companion (Seamaster technical dial). The dial & hands were superb but someone had taken a screwdriver to the case to get the spring bars off and pop the bezel at one time. It was all I could see when I wore it and it drove me nuts. I eventually found an near flawless case & bezel from the same reference (most likely not a technical), did the swap and made one excellent watch.
The watch is not “as it came” from the factory, but it has a factory replacement case of exactly the same vintage....is that heresy?