Hello all,
I had bought this constellation cal.551 a while back despite some shortcoming regarding the case.
The movement was serviced and the watch works like a charm.

There is distinct bubbling in this specimen however it is immensely wearable.
In fact I wear it almost a few days a week.

Now my question is when is dial deterioration considered patina versus damage.

Thanks and regards.

 

I consider "patina" to be a subset of "damage" ... specifically, it's the kind of damage that some people find appealing. Bubbling is not usually considered attractive.

 

pa·ti·na
/pəˈtēnə/
noun

1. a green or brown film on the surface of bronze or similar metals, produced by oxidation over a long period.

The blistering on your dial wouldn't match with my definition of "patina".

Sounds like it doesn't matter though...

 

My bad.....patina as a term is so widely used that I should have been more careful .
Thanks...yes...it doesn't matter.
Pristine constellations are exceedingly scarce from where I reside so this had to be grabbed!

 

Agreed sir. However I would take this any day over a redial. Any ideas why this bubbling happens? Sunlight damage to the lacquer layer?

 

I agree that dial is not bad enough to justify a redial. Regarding the bubbling, I would guess that moisture is more likely than sunlight to cause that type of damage, but that's really just speculation on my part.

 

My observation or rather speculation is that moisture damage would be more in area of the crown radiating inwards?

 

I actually think that it is perfectly fair to include blistering as a form of patina. The definition above is far too limited, and probably only adhered to in a few pedantic, academic or fine art circles.

Patina is simply signs of aging, and the subject dial certainly fits that criterium.

I would add that I have a couple of watches with fine blistering that I consider to be very attractive.

 

Would love to see them!

 

If the blistering is fine and evenly spread, it's not too bad. Obviously these watches look a lot better to the naked eye compared to high resolution photos. This is one example from my collection that's tolerable.

 

Nice watch with a lovely unmolested case. Tolerable...lol!
True that....my watch looks a lot better on the wrist.

 

Here one that has been a primary wearer in recent months:

 

Not at all, I was just sharing 'my' definition or how I see it.

See, no need to rely on 'my definition' as others don't see it the same way.

My google-foo is very basic, but a quick scan of the interwebs found this explanation:
Did You Know?
Italians began using "patina" in the 17th century to refer to the green film that is produced on the surface of copper. They borrowed the word from Latin, where it means "a shallow dish." (Presumably, the Italian meaning developed from the observation of such film forming on copper dishes.) By the mid-18th century, English speakers were also calling the green film "patina." And by the early 20th century, "patina" was being used in English for the gloss of polished metals, like silver, as well as wooden furniture - a meaning that led to its literary use for a surrounding aura, as demonstrated in this quote from Stella Gibbons' Cold Comfort Farm (1932): "The very atmosphere seemed covered with a rich patina of love."

While my definition isn't so important, I would explain further that for me (not for @Tony C. ) I would distinguish between:
1. Patina --> general appearance has aged and somewhat discolored
2. Blistering --> when bubbles appear in surface of paint or lacquer

A dial can be discolored without blistering, and this everyone would agree is "Patina".
A dial can be blistered without no discoloration, and this I believe many (most) would agree is not "Patina".

Hence, a dial that is both discolored and blistered, I would refer to as "Patina" but only as a result of the discoloration and not the blistering.
As always, YMMV.

 

lol! The textbook definitions of patina that you have provided are irrelevant within the context of vintage watch collecting! They are primarily narrow, anachronistic definitions relating to metal oxidation. Patina found on vintage watch dials results from the interaction of various metals and chemicals (e.g. finishing lacquers) and the elements (air, sun and moisture).

Blistering is absolutely a form of patina. Changes that are not natural, such as polishing, scratches, etc., are a different matter entirely, and do not fall into the same category.

 

OK, I will agree with this with the caveat that it has to be attractive blistering. Patina has a positive connotation in my mind. I'm not getting into the technical definition, more common usage amongst collectors.

 

I see your conviction has grown since your earlier post as "think" and "probably" have been replaced with "absolutely". I am happy to admit your knowledge and experience in vintage watch collection vastly eclipses mine.

I would like to clarify your definition:
- a vintage dial with blisters where the color has not changed at all is best described using the word "patina" rather than "blistering"

How would you then describe a modern dial whereby a manufacturing defect leads to blistering (and no discoloration), would that also be "patina"?

In a dial with blistering and no discoloration, how do vintage watch collectors differentiate "patina" vs "blistering"? Is it based purely on age? What is the cut-off age at which "blistering" becomes "patina"?

 

If you weren't aware, you are certainly not the first to ask this question and won't be the last.

There was a neat thread some time ago found here with some interesting comments.

 

If you are selling, it's patina.

If you are buying, it's damage.

Or is that too cynical?