jolyon
·This post is probably as much philosophical as it is a practical question. During my journey of searching for a vintage Speedmaster, I asked opinions on various models I found by members of this board, and one of the negative comments I encountered frequently was “it looks like it could be a franken”. Meanwhile, one positive term I have seen used to describe watches that are built from all of their own original components is that they are “honest”, even when those watches are pretty beaten up and not entirely aesthetic looking. So that has given me this feeling of stigma, that watches built up from replacement original parts are dishonest watches and undesirable - more undesirable even than a very poor condition ‘honest’ watch. Perhaps it’s the feeling of the watch being tampered with in the past which gives collectors a bad feeling of “what else has been messed with in this thing”. So that got me wondering: Is it always a bad thing for a watch to have totally original, period-correct replacement parts, but that have come from another watch, or new old stock? For example, if there is a written record of exactly what was changed out and when, with details of where the replacement components were bought from and who installed them, and maybe even a note explaining WHY they were replaced, would this still constitute a ‘dishonest’ watch with a negative stigma associated with it?
I am curious to understand the consensus on where the line exists between an honest and a dishonest watch. I would also like to know if there is an etiquette for returning a watch full of service parts back to original spec without raising eyebrows.
I am curious to understand the consensus on where the line exists between an honest and a dishonest watch. I would also like to know if there is an etiquette for returning a watch full of service parts back to original spec without raising eyebrows.





