That's a really good point. I read recently that Speedies with a "220" bezel are considered collectable because of the printing error. So what makes one defect more collectable than others? Love to hear the opinion of all on this forum.
There is no rule to measure collectible value per se. It all depends on some weird logic, that's very illogical. Tintin was considered as flop for years and suddenly it's a collectible watch.
You will never know if yours' qualify for collector's fancy or will remain as avoidable defect....
PS: If RJ agrees to write an article about this, you'll have decent 5 figure watch!!
There is no rule to measure collectible value per se. It all depends on some weird logic, that's very illogical.
Pardon my ignorance but who is RJ?
Pardon my ignorance but who is RJ?
Totally agree. And I think the rules for collectible value also differ for something like the Tintin compared to defect examples. Both have their value rooted in rarity. But the Tintin also seemed to be more of an 'emerging market' type of value i.e. interest and investment in all speedmasters has increased massively, and with that the prices of almost all LEs.
Just my 2c, it seems collectible defect examples need to be rare but also invoke something curious or interesting or physically unique (in a cool or nice looking way) about a watch. Personally I'd be less interested in a rare defect if it impairs the look or function of a watch. For example I wouldn't be interested in a defect where a couple of applied dial indices or the logo was missing, or the case design was wrong and the pushers jammed, even if it was proven to be rare and came like that from the factory.
