I think it’s all an interesting argument, but it all comes down to personal perspective and this is the problem. In record collecting, I have seen NOS ratings on records where shrink wrap is gone- that’s not NOS. In fact, it can go further with tattered and banged Jacket corners and partially ripped cellophane- but sealed- so it is still considered NOS.
Obviously, use your eyes and use your brains- but I think it’s important to understand what perfection looks like and have that as the reference by which all others are judged.
Rarity and age should have nothing to do with condition. When any 2998 left the factory, it looked perfect, was in a box, had paperwork, hang tag, sticker on the back or whatever, and that’s the standard. From that point of reference it’s all a matter of how close to or far from that does it rate.

 

@watchlovr I would say a strong good

 

Thats easy (and its the point that most people miss in this discussion) : 'excellent' for a particular reference, is the best condition watch that has been seen to sell (hence “Remember a Collectors Condition 2915 is probably not the same condition as a Collectors 145.022-78”). So again, in the case of the 400k 2915 ... it was not a NOS mint perfect watch. It was the best condition recorded sale of such a watch sold publicly. So, regardless of whether one applies gun ratings or card ratings or bra sizes to determine the condition ... if thats a 5/5 on 1 scale or a 2/5 on another, its price was 400k, and thats a point to be used when evaluating a watch for sale. A true NOS 2915 will not suddenly be worth 400k after the scales for said watches have been adjusted or modified : It will most likely sell for 1M+ (regardless if the 400k one is a 5/5 or 2/5 or 13/5, I honestly don't think most people will care for that as the buyers will have their own 'rating').

For 145.012's for example, its far easier. There are MANY of those, with many records of sales. 4/5 ones (according to my rating) have sold here, on OF, for e.g. +- 14k...

Anyhow. Sorry for all the bla bla bla folks. Over and out.

PS: in relation to the OPs Ed White ... here is an 'excellent' one...although due to the sheer volume of these produced, I am certain someone somewhere has a slightly minter one.

 

Ok, now I get it- we are talking about two different things here- you are addressing value based on known examples, not strictly physical condition- this is where I was getting hung up.

 

Normally, I find myself in agreement with you, but not this time.

I think your articulation of very good is actually higher than @Spacefruit ’s.



@watchlovr : I vote for very good on yours.

If yours isn’t very good, then what qualifies as very good that isn’t actually excellent?

BTW, fascinating conversation.

It’s almost easier to talk about what you think a fair market value of a watch is, rather than debating the nuances of words.



I think my 105.003-65 is about $15k and @watchlovr ’s 2998-61 is a $30k watch easily.

 

Well...yes/no. In some cases, there are certainly NOS (or physical condition 10/10) examples involved (especially more numerous/more recent references) in the value/grading system at the 'excellent' end. I have found at least one like new, and one that can be seen as NOS, that are caliber 321's. I would take a guess that where the 'excellent' watches are no longer 'NOS' would be where the straight-lugs start.

 

I decently can’t call very good a watch with a dial missing some lume. I try to but I can’t. Because it’s something you can’t unsee.

 

Well then we get back into the argument of condition- which speaks to the OP. Just because there are a limited number of known examples, and the best known example has fetched the highest premium, doesn’t negate any physical “flaws” or damage keeping it from being a truly factory fresh example which is the gold standard for any collectible object. If we are using an example that is “flawed” as the best example and rating against that- it sets the bar lower- which goes inherently against the principles of grading when using new as the standard.
To use the OP’s example, the original factory finish has been altered, so regardless of how clean it may look now, it shouldn’t be considered “Very Good” because it is no better than a trashed factory case prior to refinishing.

 

I suppose that's where I'm more inline with @JwRosenthal 's argument. The scale isn't sliding. But to be effective, I think we need more than 5 points.. We can still track that the best known example of a particular reference was _only_ a 9.0 for example. (ack that we're not talking about a base 10 scale - but thought that better represented my argument)

 

I respect your opinion ‘Gene but I can’t agree. If your grading has such a bias it won’t work.



My Exotic Seamaster is certainly the best condition of the handful (cal. 321) observed so far. Does it qualify for Excellent, though?

Certainly not... even if I wouldn’t mind.

 

So is this excellent. ? It’s not NOS.

 

What I mean here is : a watch that we would grade 7.8/10 (with no bias of any kind) can potentially be worth more money because there’s no supply in a better condition; but that lack of supply doesn’t make of it a 9.4/10 watch.

 

Not sure about excellent but it does meet the top of my personal scale of 'Holy Shit!"

 

+1

Wowzers! But this is precisely the point that's being made - we should discuss what an excellent watch would look like. In my mind a NOS (with no dings etc per some earlier comments) could be a 10. Will we see many vintage like that - I'll wager and say no. But an example like your's above - surely in the 9.0.s Same for Spacefruits boxed Ed White. Not a 10, but pretty damn high


Edit - For those not familiar with the comic book approach and census here's an example of a 1940s sought after book - .Obviously we're not going to put our watches in plastic cases, but you get the point.

 

I have to agree: the same criteria has to be used, on the same scale, regardless of age. Otherwise, you’re going to get lost.

Like coins, up to perfect 70


Here’s a graded 64:



Patina a little too splotchy for a higher grade.

 

It’s not a 10 but it’s still excellent as it meets the criteria for a excellent.

You can work out a 5 scale @Spacefruit into a 9 and 10 are excellent and a 7 and 8 are very good, etc.....

 

Hits the nail on the head for me.

 

I dont know anything about coins, but that patina is very nice!!

 

Agreed- it’s stunning, and as @airansun said, because of it- it gets dinged on condition because it is not mint (literal to the term). Even if this were the only example of this coin on the planet, it would still be considered “flawed” due to the finish- the value wouldn’t be affected by the patina if it were the only one, but it would be acknowledged that it is not 100%. The grading of coins is held to a standard of original finishes (as should watches IMO) and not some arbitrary standard based on just what is known to be out there. But if this coin were a watch, Hondinkee would be waxing poetic and selling it at a premium

 

It's hard to tell from the pictures you posted but has some of the lumen fallen out of the hand? If it has seems like that would prevent from being excellent if your going by a strict unbiased assessment(although @Spacefruit doesn't mention hands in his grading). Even a NOS watch could have lumen deterioration which would prevent it from being rated excellent.