JwRosenthal
·So I understand that with time comes signs of age, my graying hair and crows feet speak to that. But at what point did the watch community embrace damage as authenticity and credibility?
I have seen listings and posts, both on the forums and on eBay where terms like “starry night”, “ghost bezel” “spider finish” “butterscotch lume”, “chocolatey tropical” and “stunning patina” are used to describe water/moisture damage, sun fading, glossy finish crazing (which was an admited process failure by Rolex btw), and every other superlative to describe what we used to think of as flaws and damage that would decrease the value of a watch, not enhance it!!
This is akin to how we used to joke about real estate listings with terms like “charming” (small), “city views” (brick wall and dumpsters), “water feature” (flooding basement) “rustic charm” (decrepit).
I have even read of people intentionally patinating their vintage watches to make them more distressed looking-that is just insane!
Am I in the minority that sees these “features” as flaws?
I have seen listings and posts, both on the forums and on eBay where terms like “starry night”, “ghost bezel” “spider finish” “butterscotch lume”, “chocolatey tropical” and “stunning patina” are used to describe water/moisture damage, sun fading, glossy finish crazing (which was an admited process failure by Rolex btw), and every other superlative to describe what we used to think of as flaws and damage that would decrease the value of a watch, not enhance it!!
This is akin to how we used to joke about real estate listings with terms like “charming” (small), “city views” (brick wall and dumpsters), “water feature” (flooding basement) “rustic charm” (decrepit).
I have even read of people intentionally patinating their vintage watches to make them more distressed looking-that is just insane!
Am I in the minority that sees these “features” as flaws?






