Omega Seamaster 120 Ref. 135.027: Worn vs Mint Condition

Posts
19
Likes
2
I have been offered this 135.027 Seamaster 120. And as you can see it has lived a life. I'm guessing it is from around 1970, and has recently been serviced but clearly little on the exterior has been changed (having said - the case looks like it could have been swapped). I have 166.027, from 68, which is near perfect condition and I've always sought out the very best I could afford. But this little fella has taken on a different look completely and, while somewhat conflicted, I am really warming to it? What's the thought - better staying on near as perfect when collecting as you can, or loving the look of a watch that has been fully used ?

 
Posts
13,312
Likes
23,118
Personally I’d take little enjoyment from that dial.

Sometimes years of wear can result in a really attractive patina or aesthetic that do provide a nice alternative to a watch in mint condition. This isn’t one of those times.
 
Posts
13,778
Likes
53,743
Personally I’d take little enjoyment from that dial.

Sometimes years of wear can result in a really attractive patina or aesthetic that do provide a nice alternative to a watch in mint condition. This isn’t one of those times.
+1 … The dial / hands need more TLC than I’d care to invest. That said, everyone has different taste.
 
Posts
24,658
Likes
54,770
All things being equal, I don't like moldy lume. But if it's dirt cheap and you would get pleasure from wearing it, then go for it.
 
Posts
7,726
Likes
14,308
If you can be happy looking at that dial and hands, fine. Everyone's different, but I see no joy in it.
 
Posts
889
Likes
2,818
I would for sure relume the dial and hands, if I was buying. When it's that far gone, no point in saving the moldy lume. However we all enjoy something or another that's all beat up. Totally personal preference.