Ed White: is it a crime?

140dave

Coming over to wrist watches from the pocket watch camp it is an interesting discussion. For pocket watches it is generally "allowed" to make a perfect example using multiple watches; pulling the dial and hands from one and moving to another. As long as the parts Could Be original to the watch, eg period correct and consistent with other known examples, then it is not really an issue. Cant make something that never existed but if your minute hand has a bit of oxidation it was never considered an "alteration" to take a perfect hand from a donor. (a same period donor, no made parts etc) And yes this went as far as dials and cases. Cases were for protection and did get replaced when dinged or wore through, and dials were porcelain and fragile, prone to cracks and chips and again were often replaced. No way to verify what was original or not until after 1924 when they started factory casing the watches, and even then you have to have an original box with labels to match a case serial number to a watch movement serial number and no way to know about dial & hands, just that they are "correct".

So for me, personally, I do not have any issue using parts that would have been used for a service if sent in in 1969, to upgrade the piece. Though I do recognize the value and desire for "completely original" pieces I do not think you can really ever know on a vast majority of pieces. Yes there are exceptions here on the forum but even those are very few and far between.

simonsays

I would happily argue that it is very authentic, possibly not original, but I think it is one of the nicest watches of its reference, any yes your other point stands!

Archer

In my experience, pocket watches are sort of "backwards" in this regard to wrist watches. As you say, pocket watch collectors tend to be more forgiving of external parts being changed as long as they are considered correct, but from what I've seen much less forgiving of movement parts being changed. This primarily stems from the fact that with many pocket watches, many parts are etched with a portion of the serial number.

So the underside of all bridges will have the last 2 or 3 digits of the serial number stamped on them, and even the balance will have the the scratched on the underside of the arms. You occasionally see this on wrist watches, but it's much more common on pocket watches. Here's a wrist watch example - Patek I'm working on, and you can just see the 2 digits stamped on the underside of this bridge:

140dave

Correct. Sorry if it wasnt obvious but I was not referring to any movement parts with a serial number, of course those need to match. I was only referring to normal external parts w/out serial numbers, like the OP bezel.

cvalue13

Just what I was wondering over: it seems if we want a principle allowing bezels to be swapped and still be “acceptable,” the principle may not be that at time of manufacture the choice was arbitrary to the watchmaker - because that principle would also apply to entire movements, hands, dials, case backs, bracelets, etc. (which it seems we don’t intend to capture by the principle).




Here we move from talking about the “original” watch first assembled arbitrarily by the watchmaker, to the later issue of replacement of parts over time in natural course - which is also very interesting to fret over.

It will be twice in a few months I’ve had occasion to raise the Ship of Theseus thought experiment: does an object that has had all of its components replaced remain the same object?

A different version of the Ship of Theseus is more in line with your hypothetical above, as it’s restyled as the “Grandfather’s Ax” - over the years each of the head and handle have been replaced, so it still the same object used by the grandfather?

For reasons beyond the present discussion, the answer in philosophy is remarkably difficult to settle - it’s probably the oldest metaphysical thought experiment on object identity, debated still and back to Heraclitus.

Ignoring philosophy, to watch collectors’ principles the solution seems a bit closer at hand: regardless of whether it’s the same metaphysical object, the grandfather’s ax with replaced head and handle is (in the watch world) often seems to be viewed as less desirable than the grandfather’s ax with original head/handle (in the watch world).

But why, exactly? What are other’s thoughts?

The grandfather’s ax hypothetical draws out one strange facet of all this: imagine a grandfather’s ax with unreplaced head/handle because it was rarely used, vs the grandfather’s ax with multiple iterations of replaced head/handle because the grandfather’s work had him using the “same” ax every day for decades.

In watch terms, which one is more desirable?

Is this one area that vintage Rolex collectors differ?