Is there a consensus where the line is between vintage and modern Omegas? In particular, the Seamaster.

 

Many people say a 25 year old watch is vintage. If you follow this, the first "Bond" SMP will become a vintage watch in 2 years.

 

To me it is more look and feel than an exact number of years.

 

Modern vs Vintage LookingAntique

 

Actually, I much prefer Sean Connery as an "antique." His acting is much better than in the days of his 007 career.

All the Best.

 

Difficult to call but one way may be to look at where STS start charging more for a service. All the Seamsters back to the Bond in 1993/4 with movement 1120 are tier one, the previous auto Pre-Bond 200m with movement 1111 is in tier 2 so it could be argued that this is a kind of cut off. Not sure whether I would call a 1992 watch vintage though. To be truly vintage, I would suggest an arbitrary cut off of 1970 since this is the last truly pre-quartz era.

 

In my eyes pre 1980 is vintage. Yes there were my quartz watches just before 1980 but many people still used mechanical watches.

 

That's the year I was born. What does that make me?

 

A ) Timeless & Enduring
B ) Instant Classic
C ) Certified best Cabernet Sauvignon Award
D ) All of the above [emoji1]

 

Those choices aren't so bad. Thanks!

 

Thanks everyone for the replies. My interest (for now) is in the chronographs of the 90's and 00's so I guess that keeps it firmly in the modern section-at least as we sit here in 2016.

 

No true 100% in the 70s Quartz took over

 

I don't get any watches newer than 85'

 

My newest from 78'