I have three watches. A JLC Thin Tribute to 1931 Reverso (Casa Fagliano strap and syringe hands), steel Geophysic 1958 and a FOIS. I really like the tribute watches (not all mind you) because they look like watches from say the 50s. The majority of modern watches don't do it for me from a design perspective. Take Rolex for example. I think Rolex is great because in a lot of cases they haven't diverged from their original designs a whole lot over the course of say fifty years depending on the model. Still the current iterations keep growing one way or the other with either case design, size or the maxi dials. For me none of them look as appealing as the previous generation. Submariner, GMT, Explorer, Explorer II... In fact in some cases they look pretty bad like the current Explorer II (though the GMT and Sub aren't bad). And I've seen comments online about getting an Explorer I over a Railmaster for example. No way I'd get a 39mm Explorer I. That watch was perfectly sized at 36mm and I have a very average 7" wrist. Back to the point though, I generally prefer the look of tribute pieces to newer models that are being made today.
So in my case I have two watches with faux aged lume in the Reverso and the Geophysic. In both cases the intent was to give the watch a more vintage or aged look. Yet knowing that and looking at them they also look like design elements that work with both watches. The markers on the Reverso to me look more a design choice than a purposeful attempt to make them look aged. While the on the Geophysic it's less so, it's still a very nominal difference. I'd add that it simply looks like they opted for a more yellow colored lume than say a green colored lume. I also swapped out the strap to the Geophysic to a dark navy alligator and so the yellow of the lume matches that much better and again looks like a design element in the end.
While I've read cases for just getting an original vintage piece, that for me has it's issues. For starters, I looked up an orginal Railmaster just the other day and I think I found what was an original reference from a know dealer. If I recall correctly the watch was $26,000. For that price you could get all three anniversary editions and still have money left over for another really nice watch. The other catch with vintage for me would be is the watch 100% original? How does it run? Do I want to wear it around all the time? What is the aesthetic condition? I was recently told by someone that they sold their Geophysic 1958 for an original Geophysic. They also said they were having issues with the original running properly.
I think I read a comment by Robert Jan Broer about how the faux aged lume fits this new release and he said something like "imagine it with white lume?" I think that comment is spot on. I'd even expand on it and say imagine the watch in say thirty years after you lived with it and the watch has taken some knocks but the lume looks like it did from day one. For me it'd probably look like a vintage watch that's been re-lumed looks today, not very good.
I'm not a big fan of lume in general. I understand it on watch, but I don't get excited over seeing a lumed up watch on Instagram and I rarely if ever am in a situation where I need to use it. For me a watch looks it's best in natural daylight.
I also don't get the argument about it being fake aged when how often do you read comments like "I love vintage because it had this life to it before I owned it and if only this watch could tell stories..."? Well at the end of the day in most cases you don't know what those stories are. On top of that though now the watches stories are you wearing it to Starbucks? But hey, it's vintage, right?
At the end of the day it's down to one's personal opinion about faux aged lume. While I do question it myself a bit at times, I tend to look at it as being able to get something you seemingly won't get anymore and so as the watch ages with you it will look better down the road.
Click to expand...