I was keeping an eye on this auction for other stuff, but saw this: https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/...0102/lot-ec87adcc-b3f3-44f3-acdf-a73e00fa2829 Despite being described as circa 1960s, it seems like a slightly grubby 1974(?) Speedy with no movement shots but "movement appears operative, not tested, sold as seen and service advised". Lume missing on hands, dial looks plots look a bit too white as well... Sold for £2300 + 27% BP & tax, so best part of £3k delivered. I thought that could be a nice beater for £1k but 3 times that..?
The dial is no newer then 76. Should clean up well, except for that minute hand. Price sold is inline with the bracelet. Dial lume is within variance for that period, and looks alot like my -76. Unless it has been removed which you cannot tell from the picture.
The question is, where should we look now that will make us think in 3 years "shit why didn't I pick 3 of these up ?!"
I keep saying it. Look what happened to Daytonas and now realize how many (fewer) speedmasters there are and now awareness is there Speedmasters are the next "investment" watch. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
William, are you saying there were less Speedmasters (lets say pre 1970's) made than Daytonas (lets say until they became auto wind)?
The position of the pushers concerns me, looks like they are almost stuck.... tough to spend that kind of money when the movement condition is in question.
Yeah, seems about right these days. Unless I know the serial or see the inside caseback I have to assume Speedmasters with this dial are '80s, value-wise. With the bracelet this is maybe a little high but it's a nice example.
I do not know the production figures, nor would I like to guess. I am looking at watches available to buy now. If we take like for like, there are more (for example 1966) daytonas available in the market than speedmasters - yet the Daytona commands a much higher price, even though you could go out tomorrow and find one from a large choice. I don't think the same could be said for the 1966 speedmaster. You could find a handful, and you would be lucky if any were really worth having. Finding a vintage speedmaster is not as easy as finding a vintage Daytona My second point was that for a long while some Daytonas were almost ignored by the market, but now, they are coveted. Want to see a Paul Newman dial? I saw half a dozen in the last few days on instagram, and these are valued in terms of 100's of thousands, where as the speedmasters are still in 10's. Sure you say but that's apples and oranges - ok then a standard Daytona of that era is still higher - or we could compare the PN dials to the racings and blues. Do I think them comparable? Yes in as much as a newcomer, pockets fat with city bonuses and tired of buying the new retail brand mulch, will look at both as iconic, and think the speedmaster a bargain. Of course I don't think they are the same in terms of manufacturing quality, design or intention - but there might be lessons to learn.
I'm going to guess from this mildly cryptic comment that you feel the Speedmaster superior. I agree on every level, but was always under the impression that, for instance, the cal 321 and the Valjoux 72 were comparable in quality.
On the "PaulNewman" Daytona subject, wouldn't it be great to wear the Speedmaster nicknamed the "Neil Armstrong", strange that it has not caught on. Do we have a recognisable model we could christen? 145.022-69?
Actually no. I do not have a strong opinion, but I suspect the Rolex MAY have superior raw materials, and execution. Obviously I prefer the speedmaster on an arbitrary, intuitive basis.
Speedy vs Daytona I think it comes down to function over form, and form over function. The Speedy put function first and is a great balance of both. The Daytona puts form first for a variety of reasons not the least as having to not look like a Speedy. I think you can argue the black bezel Panda Daytona looks better but the hands and inner subdial rings which look great hurt the legibility of the watch.
Had a ref 6238 way before my 105.003. That and the 6239 are probably an apples to apples comparison, as they are both pre-screw down pushers. I understand the castle-wheel movements are in a similar league. The Rolex is dressier, the Speedmaster more rugged and legible. Four things tip the Speedmaster in the positive column for me: First, the dials are more robust. It is not uncommon to see the pump-pusher Rolex chronos with the lacquer lifting, bringing forth the dreaded dial "pimples." Not frequently seen on the Speedmaster. Next, the Rolex has fine serrations on the case back for access to the movement, which work fine if the proper tool is used. But often, this was not the case, and they get buggered up very easily. The Speedmaster's case back design makes it a little harder to do this. Third, the Speedmaster has a more impressive history. Period. Last, in general (to be fair, not as much with the earlier models), Daytonas are often the brass ring for those who have quickly made a lot of money, want to show it off, and think they're being cooler by wearing that, rather than a Sub. You can still wear a $50,000 Speedmaster without someone so much as batting an eye, but how long will that last?