You know those terms that are used in selling watches - keeps good time, running well, all original... and you know how sometimes they're stretched to breaking point or their use omits something else that's important...

What about when a watch is designated as "good" condition? Does that mean it's better than poor but only just? Or, as Speedmaster101 puts it:

There aren't many watches described as "good" that meet that criteria... especially not this pair that were auctioned in Selbourne, UK, just now...

Lot 259: A GOOD OMEGA SPEEDMASTER WRISTWATCH C1983 861 Calibre. 4 cm wide.


Obviously a little beaten up and clearly needs a crystal, but underneath I think that dial might look like a cracker. Apart from the cost of servicing, the crystal and maybe a new bezel (depending on how bad the dent at 8 o'clock looks in-hand), it could be quite a nice watch. Hammered at £1,8000 in the room so someone got it for £2,300 by the time you add their 27.6% buyer's premium.

Lot 260: A GOOD OMEGA SPEEDMASTER WRISTWATCH C1968 321 Calibre. 4 cm wide.


WOAH! No bezel, generic bracelet, hands and dial are trashed. The case might be OK I suppose, and it is a 145.012-67 so there's always the movement that could be a donor for something else...
















Hammered at £1,900 in the room, so someone saw £2,425 worth of value in that watch.

 

I saw that Lot 259 and was really tempted to bid, but somehow didnt dare to gamble.

 

I saw these 2 and chucked at the descriptions

 

Fortune favours the brave

 

Its all very subjective, for sure. But in no way does 260 qualify as Good.

At least they didn't use Minty!

Also, https://omegaforums.net/threads/what-does-“good”-mean-my-reminder-to-myself.84363/

 

Good is the new "looks like shit".

 

The second watch looks like it took a long bath in a cement mixer

 

People are always soooo picky now wanting safe queens....

 

Adjectives are often subjective, that's why good pics are what matter.

"Good pics"... oh wait!

 

'Fakk my old boots'! .....Maybe they belonged to somebody in The Who.

 

I appreciate the Speedy 101 criteria, but these are old tool watches. My "running" 321 is way better than these. Good = Close to unicorn these days.

 

"Stunning"

 

It depends heavily on the reference.

For a generic Seamaster 600 I expect 'good' to be an unpolished, sharp case, with original dial with few blemishes.

For a 2998 Speedmaster that was a tool watch and produced in much lower numbers I'm happy to lower the threshold for what qualifies as 'good'.

 

"good" is useless by itself, it depends on the scale it is measured against

 

Goodness is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I was a bit taken aback when I saw the picture for the first lot , having read the description first. What would average or poor look like?

 

Never seen an 1983 with that colured lume before - its normally lime green in colour

Looking at the listing, the case back is actually a -78

 

Don't worry about average or poor.
Imagine what trashed might look like.

 

It helps when the seller doesn't just use the adjective, but also references the scale. "Good" is a positive word in most contexts, but here's the description of Good from the Timezone scale, which is still widely used for private watch sales:

Good
Nothing fundamentally wrong with the watch, though it has quite obviously been used. Running and wearable, but may gain or lose a few minutes over 24 hours. Case may show a few dings, nicks, or deep scratches. May have a redial that is not up to high standards. May not have all original parts. 77-82%

That's a far cry from the Speedmaster101's definition of "Good". Deep scratches, unoriginal parts, and a redial are almost never "good" in the dictionary sense for all but the newbie-est collectors. Not to mention that the description's first words (Nothing fundamentally wrong...) directly contradict the rest of the description. I think most of us would consider a redial or unoriginal part to be a fundamental flaw...

Plus auction houses often have their own grading system published in the catalog that is normally overly forgiving and intentionally vague. So absent a reference to a specific grading system, these descriptions are useless.

 

I agree. For me what I would accept as good must depend on how old or rare the subject is. A brand new reference would have to be absolutely perfect to be good, a 60 year old one less so.