Holy grail, vintage or classic.

So 35 years old with plexi and tritium ( I think as not marked) does this qualify as vintage or not. Realise that holy grails are a bit marmite on here but that shouldn't alter an age related categorisation which can apply to any watch from 87/8.
This has likely been covered but my search skills are less than effective.

All 3 categories are highly subjective. Your “holy grail” is probably different from lots of people. People also frequently disagree on what define “vintage” or “classic”

Given the reference to 1987, I have the suspicion that the OP is talking specifically about the ref. 376.0822 Speedmaster Automatic, originally nicknamed "the grail" by Chuck Maddox, which in later years morphed into "Holy Grail". And assuming I've guessed right, yes, it is definitely marmite on this forum.

Given my personal history with this watch, I can only define it as a classic. While Speedmaster chronographs with an automatic movement had been around since the Mark III, this watch was the first one to take the Moonwatch's stylistic cues and associate them with the proven and ultra-legible Calibre 1045. That was a bold move in 1987 when watches tended to be much smaller and thinner. Presumably in great part because of that, this model badly flopped on the market, and it's no surprise that it was somewhat replaced by the "Reduced" which came only a year later. But for a few people, this watch left an indelible mark

Sadly for people like me, it means that out of the 2000 examples of this watch produced, the few that reach the marketplace these days do so at prices that are rather prohibitive. This means my hope of one day reacquiring one, a decade after adverse financial circumstances forced me to sell mine, is rather limited.

But I'll always remember that watch as a personal grail of mine, regardless of its nickname...

The movement in the moonwatch case was a combination hard to resist, the bracelet is superb too. Little things like the pushers are shrouded rather than open as traditional in the usual case also help. I always appreciated what Chuck saw in this one.

We're part of a small fraternity. 👍

I strongly believe that this watch needs to be worn to be fully appreciated because no words can accurately describe the amazing presence it has on one's wrist. That dial is just amazing in real life.

I just need to get myself a winning lottery ticket...

Thanks, I was referring to the 376.0822 a watch I personally love and wear. Appreciate there is some antipathy due to the "agricultural " movement but it is a proven and reliable engine. Probably favourite of all my watches, it's better in the flesh than in photos imo and it is quite photogenic.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion. 😉

I think people are quick to forget that this watch broke new ground in being first automatic Speedmaster that dared looking like a Professional model. The Mark series or the previous calibre 1045 models had their own design identity that stayed carefully away from the Moonwatch's. I know that some are allergic to the 6-9-12 sub-dial layout, while others couldn't care less about the day-date complication. The fact remains however that this utilitarian movement hiding inside had successfully passed NASA's test during the 1978 campaign, and while the US Space Agency chose to stick with the proven handwound Speedy instead of selecting the 11003 prototype which later gave us the FIFA chronograph, embarking a calibre 1045 in a Moonwatch case is hardly a heresy.

But ultimately the 376.0822 flopped on the market, at a time this size of watch was hardly fashionable. As a result we got the Reduced, appearing the following year, and more faithfully keeping with the 3-6-9 compax layout of the Moonwatch, albeit in a more compact package, even if that came at the price of a fair bit of exotropia.