Uber Tropical 6542

Posts
1,626
Likes
6,219
Damage is damage. They are two completely different things.
If you are happy to call a watch that was clearly abused tropical...more power to you. But the watch above that started this conversation is grossly abused, It almost looks like a painting.
I have never used the word tropical and I’m definitely not calling this watch tropical. I actually have never called any watch tropical.

What I am disputing is you saying that damage and tropical (and patina, I guess) are “two completely different things”. It’s the same thing: degradation due to the environment. We just use different words to better describe the effect.

I agree that this watch doesn’t look very nice, and whether we call it tropical or damaged is irrelevant to that.
 
Posts
428
Likes
1,940
I have never used the word tropical and I’m definitely not calling this watch tropical. I actually have never called any watch tropical.

What I am disputing is you saying that damage and tropical (and patina, I guess) are “two completely different things”. It’s the same thing: degradation due to the environment. We just use different words to better describe the effect.

I agree that this watch doesn’t look very nice, and whether we call it tropical or damaged is irrelevant to that.
This was my understanding as well
 
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
I have never used the word tropical and I’m definitely not calling this watch tropical. I actually have never called any watch tropical.

What I am disputing is you saying that damage and tropical (and patina, I guess) are “two completely different things”. It’s the same thing: degradation due to the environment. We just use different words to better describe the effect.

I agree that this watch doesn’t look very nice, and whether we call it tropical or damaged is irrelevant to that.


Its clearly a fine line...but the difference is in the reference and how it degrades. Yes tropical fading could be considered damage by some, but its not the same as a water/moisture damaged watch. The difference is very clear in the examples I posted. IMO a finish that fades brown is not damaged.

A true tropical watch only occurs on very specific references that are known to have a batch of paint that fades...and that is the difference. They will generally fade with limited environmental forces as opposed to a damaged dial that had excessive influences.
 
Posts
707
Likes
1,041
And I am not sure what the OP means about the watch being unwearable. Is that a reference to the damage, or to a 6542 being pricey and wanting to protect it? If the latter, many would beg to differ.

That was in reference to the condition of this bakelite insert. Bakelite (you prob. know) can be extremely unstable with age, and it is clearly already deteriorated here. Wearing any 6542 would make me nervous for this reason, as a relatively light knock or bump in the wrong direction on the right/wrong spot, and your insert could go into pieces. With this one, it just looks like we're already halfway there.

It's a judgement call, of course, but I would consider it unwearable. The beautiful example @CajunTiger linked to, I would wear. But maybe twice a year and pretty damn cautiously.
 
Posts
572
Likes
616
Interesting topic, and I am no means an expert on this, so enjoying the debate on this thread.

Is it fair to say that tropical can be considered a calculated damage? Since the reference is known to have that characteristic in the materials used for the specific part, ie the dial.

In contrast something exaggerated would categorize it as beyond normal degradation for that specific reference which in turn would be considered damaged, as seen in the OP's example?
 
Posts
707
Likes
1,041
as I stated, its a flaw in the material used. There are know references from a specific period that are known to turn tropical. This is a true tropical dial. A one off dial that was abused is not a true tropical dial.

Defining "abuse" can be difficult. What about a particular reference that was known to have bad pusher gaskets? Where there is nothing wonky in the chemistry of the dial finish, just larger than normal instances of water/moisture ingress for a given model or serial range. And ...where the watch is not "abused" as such, just lived with, worn in mild rain, in a muggy climate, etc.

Isn't this, in fact, what we see with many early Tropical Speedsters? Just poorly waterproofed watches exposed to moisture - be it from the climate or otherwise.

RE: misuse of the term "Tropical", perhaps not coincidentally the very seller of this watch put it like this back in 2012, in a similar thread on another forum, when opinions collided on what exactly defines it:

It's a combination of long time sun and water exposure. Sometimes more sun... sometimes more water. I've talked to Vietnam vets that have sold me their watches. They complained that sometimes some of the watches would fog up during the war... they would hang them in the tent to dry them out with the crown open and leave them in the sun. Opening a crown in a super humid country unfortunately lets a little moisture into the watch. Over 50-60 years that moisture will effect the watch.

Also some of the manufacturers that made dials for Rolex such as Bayer and Singer created pigmentation and color formulas that over time naturally changed colors due to the molecular bonds degrading over time. Unstable original formulas = fantastic color changes.

For example... red is an unstable color. Most older red cars have faded from sun exposure... and most of the fade is uneven. Different body panels look different. Yes some are flooded with water and have been damaged but realistically before any of this was hype we started to use the word tropical to describe both brown and beautiful dials AND damaged dials using the word tropical. It is a light hearted nickname... not meant to trick anyone or cheat them. I see thousands of watches a year... honestly the normal stuff is just normal to me... I enjoy the crackle, brown color, damage... more then I enjoy clean perfect pieces. It's just a matter of taste. And what makes this hobby and market fun is that we are all free to decide what we want to collect.

To complicate things. There is probably a useful distinction to be made between "Tropical" and what we often hear referred to as "Chocolate". Where the former is caused by UV/Moisture exposure (AKA "damage"), and originates from something that happened to the dial in possession of the owner. And the latter being a chemical process in the dial itself, and originates from how it was manufactured. These terms are interchanged sometimes, and that probably isn't helpful.

But there are many gray areas here. Good times.
 
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
abuse or damage...its all relative, regardless you are describing situations where damage is done.
 
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
I have never used the word tropical and I’m definitely not calling this watch tropical. I actually have never called any watch tropical.

What I am disputing is you saying that damage and tropical (and patina, I guess) are “two completely different things”. It’s the same thing: degradation due to the environment. We just use different words to better describe the effect.

I agree that this watch doesn’t look very nice, and whether we call it tropical or damaged is irrelevant to that.

There are clearly two different viewpoints. I come from the old school thought that the term "tropical" referred to a condition occurring within a specific batch or period of production on a specific reference. After many examples of the exact reference appeared with the same fading it was discovered that the paint used on that particular dial during a specific time frame was the culprit...this became known as a "tropical dial". These dials were sought after because they were attractive, not as common, etc. They started commanding a premium. These typically faded very evenly and looked normal otherwise as the remaining watch components were not affected by this defect. This is what I refer to as a "Tropical" watch. There are several instances with Rolex models where Rolex made changes in manufacturing to correct this defect and later models dont go tropical.

Then the term started being used (correctly or incorrectly is debatable) on damaged watches. What I mean by "damaged" is a watch that didn't have the same flaw described above (it is a typical reference that is not known to fade when subjected to normal conditions- or the vast majority of watches produced)...but instead it faded because it was exposed to excessive environmental conditions or had a faulty seals which allowed moisture or worse water to interact with the dial or other causes. The results are somewhat similar, except the damage isn't limited to the dial only but the entire watch (hands, sub dials, paint, lume, etc). This IMO is not a "tropical" watch, but rather a watch that was damaged. Sometimes this damage is attractive, sometimes not...in either case its damage. These dials tended to fade unevenly as they affected by the conditions which weren't evenly exposed to the watch. For example a faulty crown seal, where the damage would come from one side.

So no they are not the same thing, they are very different.

The example I posted earlier of the Rolex Daytona is a great example...this is a reference that is a known tropical watch. The three sub dials are known to go tropical and turn brown. Notice how evenly they have turned...yet the remaining watch, the dial, hands and lume has no tropical effect. This is directly due to a flaw in the paint used on the sub dials only. The dial is all one piece, yet the silver dial didnt fade as a different finish was applied which didnt have a defect. This is a classic "tropical" as the term was originally coined.
Edited:
 
Posts
676
Likes
1,056
Some people (mostly dealers) like to use a wider definition of the word tropical, some people want to use a more narrow definition. What can you do. At least in this case the seller isn't asking for a premium
 
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
At least in this case the seller isn't asking for a premium


they are asking $36k...you don't think thats a premium for this example?
Edited:
 
Posts
276
Likes
289
Personally I think both micampe n tiger r correct. To take for example Rolex red sub, only mark 2 & 3 dials r known to degrade in color to tropical, but not all of them. In fact, most never did evolve even though they were the same batch. And most that did turn seemed to come from tropical weather, hence the term. Since Rolex considers those tropical dials as defect n would replace with no cost, it’s safe to deduce that they r defect that turn tropical due to exposure to environment. ✌️
 
Posts
676
Likes
1,056
they are asking $36k...you don't think thats a premium for this example?
I'm not in the market for a 6542. Buying a very expensive vintage Rolex watch would frighten me, the fakes are so good. I don't think you can easily buy a 6542 with an original dial and bezel for less than 35k.
 
Posts
707
Likes
1,041
I don't think you can easily buy a 6542 with an original dial and bezel for less than 35k.

Closer to double that amount for a decent one. And again, back to the Bakelite which can swell with age, creating cracks - these are difficult to find fully intact.

 
Posts
676
Likes
1,056
think about the use of the word "tropical" itself, as in "of the tropics", as in high levels of environmental heat, sunlight, and moisture. I would guess that the term began to be applied to watch dials that changed color due to exposure to (and damage from) high levels of environmental heat, sunlight, and moisture, and they were more commonly found in watches that lived in tropical climates.
 
Posts
707
Likes
1,041
So no they are not the same thing, they are very different.

Yep...totally agree, different things. Tried to make the same point here:

To complicate things. There is probably a useful distinction to be made between "Tropical" and what we often hear referred to as "Chocolate". Where the former is caused by UV/Moisture exposure (AKA "damage"), and originates from something that happened to the dial in possession of the owner. And the latter being a chemical process in the dial itself, and originates from how it was manufactured. These terms are interchanged sometimes, and that probably isn't helpful.

...and substitute whatever labels you what for "Tropical" and "Chocolate", or swap them. The important thing is to, yes, acknowledge there are two different phenomena, broadly speaking. But it seems clear there is also some overlap or interplay of these phenomena...so it’s not always black and white. Or brown. 😗

Not sure it’s worth discussing further as there are already dozens of posts, also on this forum, trying to hash this out. Would be nice if some high priests of horology could emerge from their tower and rule once and for all, ...but they never do.