- Posts
- 804
- Likes
- 896
dan7800
·I have a few 2915's laying around. One is my daily beater I wear while grinding stumps.
So, how many 2915’s will crawl out......?
- Posts
- 3,170
- Likes
- 7,320
jimmyd13
·Well the subject gets more interesting when the question of valuing a flawed watch comes up.
How much for an otherwise correct watch with only ONE of the following:
A questionable bezel
A re lumed dial
Uncertain origin of hands
A degraded case
A true dealer will put a price on them
Some collectors will turn up their noses and dismiss them. I would argue this camp doesn’t have the stones to buy at this level and the dismissiveness is a defense or they are lucky enough to own one.
Some collectors will say, well it’s not worth the price of the last three auction results, but I would pay $X for it, rather than not have on at all
We're at the point already where people have to say "I want one and I'm willing to accept XXX flaws". As you say, the only real consideration is the price ... and that's on a constant rise. If you see it; if you like it; buy it. It will cost more tomorrow.
- Posts
- 999
- Likes
- 1,677
ac106
·On the contrary, the fewer available, the higher prices are likely to go.
Right. well. people are throwing out numbers like 50 collector grade 2915s. At some point soon they will all have come to market. Then what? how do you keep breaking records with the same watches?
That was my point.
- Posts
- 622
- Likes
- 996
Lucasssssss
·Right. well. people are throwing out numbers like 50 collector grade 2915s. At some point soon they will all have come to market. Then what? how do you keep breaking records with the same watches?
That was my point.
I suppose either the collector grade ones are re-sold by people who bought them when they were 100k, and who cant justify sitting on a 1m (for example) watch. Or that they disappear into black hole collections, which may or may not be kept by the family when the inevitable happens. Either way, most owners will have a price which the watch can be bought at, it is just if someone will pay it.
This being said, of course there is a limited supply of one owner watch barn finds, which will eventually run out.
- Posts
- 27,556
- Likes
- 70,162
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerRight. well. people are throwing out numbers like 50 collector grade 2915s. At some point soon they will all have come to market. Then what? how do you keep breaking records with the same watches?
That was my point.
Happens in the art world all the time. Paintings regularly sell over and over, going up each time, so I don't think it's impossible that it would happen with watches. Any auction for anything only needs two people willing to tango...
- Posts
- 8,888
- Likes
- 28,353
tyrantlizardrex
·I understand what you're tossing, I share the same problems in other antique hobbies. Very hard to tell the difference once cleaned and restored.
Indeed.
And the question almost becomes - does it matter?
Only the people buying them can say.
- Posts
- 9,613
- Likes
- 15,176
padders
··Oooo subtitles!Did anyone else snigger with the use of the word 'tossing' or is the just an English English thing, and my comment a bit childish I admit?
- Posts
- 9,217
- Likes
- 24,049
- Posts
- 2,145
- Likes
- 5,634
nonuffinkbloke
·When you change the strings on your Les Paul, does it become less original? If a pick up fails but you replace it with a correct, original part is the geetar now "wrong"? On the other hand, if someone spray painted over the flambe finish ... how fakked up is that?
Significantly 'fakked' at that point Jimmy!😲
However, an original guitar pick-up is good example of how these things become more crucial to value depending on the age of the vintage item.
The originality of my 1974 Les Paul pick-ups would effect it's value much more than my later 1995 Les Paul, but if we consider a 1959 Sunburst Les Paul Standard (which is the Gibson Les Paul equivalent to an Omega Speedmaster 2915) the effect of original parts being replaced (even if the parts are period correct to the model) would drastically alter the price on such a rare instrument. Having said that, wealthy, collectors would still buy it rather than not have one at all.
BUT!.... IT WOULD BE EASIER TO VERIFY THE ORIGINALITY OF THOSE VINTAGE GUITAR PARTS, COMPARED TO THE PARTS OF A, 60 YEAR OLD, OMEGA SPEEDMASTER 2015.
Edited:
- Posts
- 2,145
- Likes
- 5,634
- Posts
- 1,699
- Likes
- 5,179
Screwbacks
·10-20% of 1000 is 100-200 😉
800 are spare parts.
- Posts
- 2,145
- Likes
- 5,634
nonuffinkbloke
·Well the subject gets more interesting when the question of valuing a flawed watch comes up.
How much for an otherwise correct watch with only ONE of the following:
A questionable bezel
A re lumed dial
Uncertain origin of hands
A degraded case
A true dealer will put a price on them
Some collectors will turn up their noses and dismiss them. I would argue this camp doesn’t have the stones to buy at this level and the dismissiveness is a defense or they are lucky enough to own one.
Some collectors will say, well it’s not worth the price of the last three auction results, but I would pay $X for it, rather than not have on at all
I think you partly answered this in a footnote on the Speedmaster101 price chart: (Quote Speedmaster101) "Also remember a Collectors Condition 2915 is not the same condition as a Collectors 145.022-78:" (End of quote)
I think a questionable bezel or incorrect hands would devalue a 2915 less than a re-lumed dial or a degraded case. Possibly, the former can be corrected whereas the latter condition could be irreversible???
With regard to lume on these, very valuable, old watches; maybe as time goes by, relumed dials and hands will become inevitable and accepted by collectors. At that point, the value would be mainly effected by the quality of the workmanship.
Edited:
- Posts
- 8,888
- Likes
- 28,353
tyrantlizardrex
·Indeed.
And the question almost becomes - does it matter?
Only the people buying them can say.
Further thought on this:
When people are buying them as an easy to transport (and hard to tax) asset class, which has a publicly set value, and can slip between borders without a blink, rather than as a watch... does it matter to them at all? does it even matter that it's a watch?
- Posts
- 1,040
- Likes
- 1,337
arcadelt
·Further thought on this:
When people are buying them as an easy to transport (and hard to tax) asset class, which has a publicly set value, and can slip between borders without a blink, rather than as a watch... does it matter to them at all? does it even matter that it's a watch?
There is no level playing field when the intentions of the various buyers are so divergent. This is a similar problem in many burgeoning housing markets, where local buyers think they are in a vaguely fair market for a home or investment property, but a foreign buyer is willing to pay a much higher price in order to park money away from a potentially changing governmental policy back home. You are correct that the asset class is largely immaterial.
- Posts
- 34
- Likes
- 29
fireplace
·Well the subject gets more interesting when the question of valuing a flawed watch comes up.
How much for an otherwise correct watch with only ONE of the following:
A questionable bezel
A re lumed dial
Uncertain origin of hands
A degraded case
A true dealer will put a price on them
Some collectors will turn up their noses and dismiss them. I would argue this camp doesn’t have the stones to buy at this level and the dismissiveness is a defense or they are lucky enough to own one.
Some collectors will say, well it’s not worth the price of the last three auction results, but I would pay $X for it, rather than not have on at all
Thanks in anticipation
- Posts
- 3,170
- Likes
- 7,320
jimmyd13
·How do you know that the 2915-1 should have an oval Omega ? the registered design shows a round omega and the adverts in the catalogue show a round o omega ..the latest sale in the USA also shows a round O ...just asking for advice
Thanks in anticipation
The A1 dial was used on 2915-1 and -2 in 1957-8 with a carry over into 1959.
The A2 dial is correct for 2915-1 -2 and -3. In this version "OMEGA" is positioned slightly lower, beneath the AML and was in use in the same period as the A1 dial.
the A3 dial was in use 1958-1960 and is correct on 2915-2 and -3 as well as the 2998-1. The "OMEGA" text is the same as the A2 but positioned closer to the AML.
To confuse matters, the A4 dial is the first of the round "O" dials and was also in use 1959-60 with a carry over into 61. This is considered incorrect for a 2915 and was used on a 2998-1 and -2.
If the example you are considering fits in with these descriptions, you can be sure that it is correct. That said, if you have something that falls within a few months one way or the other ... I would not be at the front of the queue to call it wrong. MWO is the best, most complete, guide we have. The research that went into it is mind blowing ... but that doesn't mean it is absolutely Gospel.
- Posts
- 5,264
- Likes
- 24,040
Spacefruit
··Prolific Speedmaster HoarderHow do you know that the 2915-1 should have an oval Omega ? the registered design shows a round omega and the adverts in the catalogue show a round o omega ..the latest sale in the USA also shows a round O ...just asking for advice
Thanks in anticipation
If you are asking how do I know then I do not.
I value an oval O more but I do not know for sure that the round O is incorrect as such, but I can be sure the oval Omega is correct.
So I suspect the market will pay a premium for that certainty.
- Posts
- 34
- Likes
- 29
fireplace
·MWO lists three dials that carry the Oval O.
The A1 dial was used on 2915-1 and -2 in 1957-8 with a carry over into 1959.
The A2 dial is correct for 2915-1 -2 and -3. In this version "OMEGA" is positioned slightly lower, beneath the AML and was in use in the same period as the A1 dial.
the A3 dial was in use 1958-1960 and is correct on 2915-2 and -3 as well as the 2998-1. The "OMEGA" text is the same as the A2 but positioned closer to the AML.
To confuse matters, the A4 dial is the first of the round "O" dials and was also in use 1959-60 with a carry over into 61. This is considered incorrect for a 2915 and was used on a 2998-1 and -2.
If the example you are considering fits in with these descriptions, you can be sure that it is correct. That said, if you have something that falls within a few months one way or the other ... I would not be at the front of the queue to call it wrong. MWO is the best, most complete, guide we have. The research that went into it is mind blowing ... but that doesn't mean it is absolutely Gospel.
Firstly thank you so much for the information much
and I have read the MWO but they show 2 Watches not sure how, many they have seen in total but I was looking for something a bit more certain as the adverts etc don’t agree with them with regards to the round O
The transfer plates for the dials were made by Charles Voser in La Chaux de Fonds and they were printed by both Stern and Singer and he would have been the artist to produce the registered design with the round O
This 1957 date is none starter because they weren’t available for sale until 1958 and the first case backs were marked 2915 not 2915 -1
And MWO talk about serial number range 15148xxx. before the generally accepted 15499xxx
So apart from theses inconsistencies I have seen very early versions with a round ‘O high ‘ so has any owner on the forum got the round O in and early version to see if we can get some confirmed
- Posts
- 34
- Likes
- 29
fireplace
·Thanks for your reply ..but how do you know that the oval is correct ..I accept a lot have turned up with the ovals but is that conclusive
Loads of don bezelled Watches turn up with none don bezels as change has happened in the the last 50 years but these watches are 60 years old
were the old radium dials swapped for new radium dials at service ..were two dials in issue at the same time
why would the registered design showing the work of Charles Voser ..the transfer plate maker ... be changed at production that somewhat invalidates the registration
Loads of don bezelled Watches turn up with none don bezels as change has happened in the the last 50 years but these watches are 60 years old
were the old radium dials swapped for new radium dials at service ..were two dials in issue at the same time
why would the registered design showing the work of Charles Voser ..the transfer plate maker ... be changed at production that somewhat invalidates the registration
- Posts
- 3,170
- Likes
- 7,320
jimmyd13
·Firstly thank you so much for the information much
and I have read the MWO but they show 2 Watches not sure how, many they have seen in total but I was looking for something a bit more certain as the adverts etc don’t agree with them with regards to the round O
The transfer plates for the dials were made by Charles Voser in La Chaux de Fonds and they were printed by both Stern and Singer and he would have been the artist to produce the registered design with the round O
This 1957 date is none starter because they weren’t available for sale until 1958 and the first case backs were marked 2915 not 2915 -1
And MWO talk about serial number range 15148xxx. before the generally accepted 15499xxx
So apart from theses inconsistencies I have seen very early versions with a round ‘O high ‘ so has any owner on the forum got the round O in and early version to see if we can get some confirmed
I'll just add two points to think about:
1) contemporary adverts are great to establish something that's in any doubt (like the date "De Ville" was first used in a thread yesterday) but you do have to treat them with a little scepticism. Legally, ads have always been given leaway and are laughingly referred to as "mere puff". They can often show images of earlier watches; prototypes or samples while referring to similar watches but ones with what we now consider important differences. So, if they can prove a definite point, great; if they create some confusion, consider that the advert itself might be flawed.
2) MWO use physical examples as their basis. It may be that those examples are not truly correct but a lot of effort has gone into ensuring that are as trusted as they can be. That doesn't mean they are 100% ... just as close as anyone can be reasonably sure of.
And that's what this grey area is: reasonable certainty. Not absolutes. I don't think it's possible to get absolutes here ... but if anyone can show them, I'll be the first to happily be persuaded.
