Having just finished reading yet another thread debating the word vintage as applied to watches, it occurred to me how much more useful the word classic might be. As in, what was the period of time when that particular reference was at its peak of successfully and beautifully defining itself in the market?

For example, I would argue that the classic period for Speedmasters was roughly 1960 to 1970. The classic period for Seamasters was about 1950 to 1970. Classic Daytonas are 60’s and 70’s. The classic period for Rolex as a brand was 1960 to 1980. The classic period for dive watches is 1960 to 1970(?). I think this illustrates what I’m getting at.

If we were to follow the antique automobile world, then vintage is the period before classic, and modern is the period after it. Anything before Incabloc would be veteran, if we follow the car world.

I apologize for bringing up this annoying topic again. I’d be interested in hearing reactions from those who still think there’s life in this dead horse.

 

In the Rolex world pretty much any Submariner /GMT pre 1980 is classed as Vintage , mainly due to the type of crystal used & aluminium inserts . Post 1980 when sapphire became the norm for Rolex they are generally classed as modern classics up to about 2007, when ceramic inserts & maxi cases were introduced making them modern . Just as a rule of thumb & not gospel or set in stone .

 

I completely agree with you, @airansun . However, maybe the usage of the word classic cannot replace the usage of the term vintage on all circumstances..

For instance: a Seamaster from the 90s may not be a classic in this sense if compared to those of the 50s to 70s. However, it would be (for most collectors and enthusiasts, I believe) still vintage, right?

 

Not sure if it can be applied categorically:

 

No, the classic period for AMC is clearly earlier:



That Gremlin is some post-Modern farce. AMC had a lot of them during that period.

 

Personally, I tend to use vintage for anything pre luminova, so the cutoff is around 2000. This is a bit different for Japanese watches as they dropped radiactive lume before that.

I think also that classic could be used for the watches between 1950 and 1970: waterproof, shockproof, wide use of interchangeable parts and modern jewels, rotor automatics, ball bearings, etc. Most legendary wristwatch movements are from this period. Also, industrial production was streamlined (the consecutive runs of omega chronometer movement is a good example). All modern features are already here, but they were effectively tools and not jewellery. I'm not quite sure we gained much in 50 years.

Anything mechanical after 1970 is a bit strange (dare I say fully degenerate nowadays) as those watches were gradually replaced by electronics, thus losing their intended original purpose, and gaining another completely different one: jewellery.

Of course the precise cutoff dates are a little arbitrary. We could replace 1970 by 1980 as by then, quartz was in full swing.

What do you think of this?

 

Arrrggghh! Made for AMC in by Austin in Longbridge, Bermingum. I have seen one on the UK's roads this year -- was surprised the wretched thing had survived!

Thinking of classifications the contemporary 1950/60's Austins are mainly known as "Grey Porridge" over here. What watches ....?

 

I completely agree with this as a broad statement. The classic period of wristwatches was about 1950 to the late 70’s or so, for all the reasons you state. It was the time when many major brands manufactured their iconic references.

As a side note, I wonder what impact WW2 had on the pervasiveness of wristwatch wearing in the general population. We know that the First World War established wristwatches and began the closing period of classic pocket watches. In the Second World War, unlike the First, many soldiers were issued wristwatches.

Between increased reliability and accuracy and the reduced cost of mass production, wristwatches were no longer just replacing pocket watches. They were being worn by people who’d not carried timepieces before. Maybe the most interesting/revealing segment would be the spread of wristwatch wearing among women.

The classic period of wristwatches intersected with a new, broader hunger for them.

 

So, then, I shouldn’t claim this either?



How about these? AMC reached its peak as separate entities in the early 50’s, hence the classic examples.

 

De gustibus non est disputandum.

 

I like to keep it simple, vintage is anything over 45-50 years old and an antique is anything over 100 years old. It seems that you are introducing a subcategory between vintage and old/modern. However, classic to me is something that is iconic. Consider the definitions of the word "classic":

"A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style; something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality; of the first or highest quality, class, or rank – something that exemplifies its class." (from Wikipedia)

"of the first or highest quality, class, or rank
serving as a standard, model
of or adhering to an established set of artistic or scientific standards or methods
basic; fundamental
of enduring interest, quality, or style
definitive
of or relating to automobiles distinguished by elegant styling, outstanding engineering, and fine workmanship that were built between about 1925 and 1948."

The Daytona, Submariner, Speedmaster, and Seamaster, for example, are all classic watches, regardless of the era in which they were manufactured. Could you say that the Daytonas of the 1960s are superior in quality to those manufactured today? No, but, you can state that the current Daytona watches adhere to an established class, style, quality and definitely of enduring interest.

Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/classic