Cherry-picking a few results from auctions is less than compelling. Yes, many collectors prefer unmolested watches, including patinated dials, but I can tell from deep experience in the market (I am currently at Europe's biggest watch fair in Munich) that there must be many buyers who prefer polished cases and a "like new" look. I have seen more and more such watches appear at fairs and dealer shops around Europe over recent years. So, there are really two distinct markets, and I see no signs of there being any (selling) advantage to having a patinated dial unless it happens to be particularly attractive.
The author of the article seems to have missed the point. Collectors (at least those on this forum) seek for un-molested specimens, not for a patinated watch. An original non-patinated watch is worth a lot more to collectors than a patinated one. Condition, condition condition!
that rolex triple calendar moonphase had a case in amazing condition but the case wasn't especially interesting and the dial was unattractive. it's the "rolex" on it, otherwise it wouldn't be worth much
There is obviously a market for tarted up tired watches. Look at eBay. It’s a separate market from collectors and high end collectors. In other news the sky is blue.
I agree to an extent, the author is confused...in the years I have been collecting vintage watches, I have never sought out a watch that was "restored and polished to look ‘like new’'. To the contrary, I have always looked for "watches in original condition with honest patina." This is mostly true with any collector, whether it be watches, cameras, furniture, cars...it doesnt matter. Collectors seek out honest examples, and patina is the main attribute that tells us if the piece is 50 years old or 5 years old. If he wrote this article 30 years ago it might be relevant, but he is a bit late to the show. But patina and damage are not the same...same goes with the loosely used term "tropical". A damaged watch is not tropical. Tropical is a natural process that only occurs to certain examples in a known range. But this is another topic. Patina and damage are not the same thing...a perfect example of a vintage watch should have patina, if it doesnt then this is a clue.
I’m discovering that I enjoy patina more than most collectors the more I read on OF. Granted the patina I like is a more uniform, warm patina than a a dial with a big splotch near one of the markers. The watch I’m wearing as I type this on my lunch break is a 168.004 that I overpaid for (probably) because I liked the patina of it, how it looked with the gold markers, and how the patina complements brown straps. Pristine examples are nice and while I have and enjoy a few pristine pieces, they lack a certain uniqueness. 168.004 is by no means a rare watch and while I could have waited for a pristine one and paid a king’s ransom for it, in the end it looks the same as all the other pristine ones out there. Sort of why I don’t really take pictures of my newer watches and don’t really enjoy wading through loads of pictures of people showing off brand new Speedmasters or Planet Oceans, it’s just all the same to me. I guess I’m just saying that if a watch comes up with particularly attractive patina to it, I’ll pay something of a premium for it vs an otherwise blah example of the same watch with a very ordinary dial. There’s exceptions of course to this but true for the most part.
Patina is the beauty of aging. It is the magic that makes any vintage watch dial unique. But, like garlic, it can be overdone.
If it is just the laquer process naturally gassing off through time then it is not damage to me and part of the charm, damage is damage and not the same, but I'm ok with small dent on a 50-70 year old watch. I'm not ok with it being a franken or a parts watch. My Connie has a gorgeous butterscotch patina I love.
Hi, I totally agree with @CajunTiger on this topic. Patina and damage are two different things. And I really prefer my 80 years old Minerva by contrast of the CHF 60 k new looking piece auctioned by Phillips last year. Best
I've always been a fan of Jim Collins' "Genius of the And" philosophy. There are watches that look good with patina and wear: AND there are those that look good otherwise: I like em both!