- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,998
cvalue13
·Very much enjoying the education/debate!
🍿
Wonder where OP has gone off to …. 😁
🍿
Wonder where OP has gone off to …. 😁
Urgent Help with GMT 1675
- Posts
- 24
- Likes
- 14
Fedoclock
·Here is same watch another angle
- Posts
- 24
- Likes
- 14
Fedoclock
·@Fedoclock Your stubborn position is perplexing. Please take some time to educate yourself before making comments that are not accurate. Here's an example of crown guards on an early '70's 1675 case. As you may notice, they have some wear from use and are also unpolished.
I hope you are kidding. I don t believe you are talking seriously posting this pic.
- Posts
- 86
- Likes
- 107
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,998
cvalue13
·@cvalue13 My opinion comes from experience in owning and holding honest examples in person. If this were polished by a wheel, the chamfers and satin finish would not be retained as indicated in these pics. The lug holes show wear but no evidence of polishing and appear factory original for a matte era case.
thanks for the additional info.
it seems, in part, that some of what is going on in the debate could be different people having differing ontologies of “polish” and so speaking past one-another. a few perhaps think of “true” polish as something like “made into butter by a polish in wheel at high speeds,” whereas others perhaps think of it as “uniformly softened edges, and now more reflective rather than more matte planes” … to oversimplify in an effort of examples.
I’m just glad my initial comments of positivity to the OP appear to hold more and more water the longer I wait 😁
Edited:
- Posts
- 86
- Likes
- 107
993watch
·@cvalue13 For most of us concerned about honest originality, when we use the term "polish" it refers to a case that has had some mechanical intervention by a buffing or polishing wheel by a watchmaker. There are degrees of alteration that can come from that intervention to original angles, bevels, finish, etc. The "polish" a case may get from normal wear over many years is what many of us refer to as "sleeve" polish. Depending on the degree, it is still preferred by many over a piece that was mechanically polished or a case that was recut to appear as new.
- Posts
- 13,153
- Likes
- 52,275
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,998
cvalue13
·@cvalue13 For most of us concerned about honest originality, when we use the term "polish" it refers to a case that has had some mechanical intervention by a buffing or polishing wheel by a watchmaker. There are degrees of alteration that can come from that intervention to original angles, bevels, finish, etc. The "polish" a case may get from normal wear over many years is what many of us refer to as "sleeve" polish. Depending on the degree, it is still preferred by many over a piece that was mechanically polished or a case that was recut to appear as new.
Appreciate the additional info, but it feels a bit like you’re maybe confusing me with someone asking for a lesson. I was in my comments attempting instead to be merely delicate in noting that BOTH interlocutors in your “discussion” appeared to be clinging to dogma more than discourse.
But, as for that lesson: stating as a generalization that all “concerned about honest originality” define “polish” as and only as mechanical intervention, is I think, to simultaneously suggest that I’m not someone concerned with it, and at the same time ignorant of what “it” is.
Perhaps in your circle there’s an observed and clear distinction between “polish” and “sleeve polish,” but I think there are plenty of people who are still “concerned about honest originality” that yet don’t so rigidly observe that distinction.
Refer again to my point about “people talking past one another”
- Posts
- 603
- Likes
- 2,567
t_swiss_t
·Not sure what dogma I'm clinging to (if you are referring to me).
The watch looks to have been heavily worn, polished by years of wear and/or by a jewelers cloth or at some point (who knows), but still retains much of its original shape and chamfers and is better than the vast majority of examples from the period. Comparing it to pictures of practically unworn watches from dealer's websites is about as valuable an exercise as comparing paint from a car coming off the assembly line to one that's been driven for 40 years. Is the new car more expensive and would a collector want one? Sure. But a lot of collectors still think the driven one is nice and worth collecting, and that's my point. The price being paid for it is easily 20% less than a collector would expect to pay on the open market; not everyone wants to pay the >$30k the dealers that are selling unworn examples would want for a matte gmt.
The watch looks to have been heavily worn, polished by years of wear and/or by a jewelers cloth or at some point (who knows), but still retains much of its original shape and chamfers and is better than the vast majority of examples from the period. Comparing it to pictures of practically unworn watches from dealer's websites is about as valuable an exercise as comparing paint from a car coming off the assembly line to one that's been driven for 40 years. Is the new car more expensive and would a collector want one? Sure. But a lot of collectors still think the driven one is nice and worth collecting, and that's my point. The price being paid for it is easily 20% less than a collector would expect to pay on the open market; not everyone wants to pay the >$30k the dealers that are selling unworn examples would want for a matte gmt.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,998
cvalue13
·Not sure what dogma I'm clinging to (if you are referring to me).
My response did not @ you 😁
The watch looks to have been heavily worn, polished by years of wear and/or by a jewelers cloth or at some point (who knows), but still retains much of its original shape and chamfers and is better than the vast majority of examples from the period.
Again, I do understand this view; I think you also understand that enough of this type of “polish” and plenty of people in this hobby will still call the watch “polished” … I’ve been on this forum for going on 10 years, and admit I’ve not read every post, but not until today have I heard the needle-threading term “sleeve polish” - much less used as almost a widely accepted ontology of “polish”
But a lot of collectors still think the driven one is nice and worth collecting, and that's my point.
I think almost no one is disagreeing with this whatsoever, least of all me
See also my initial coming to defense of the OP’s purchase.
What is “too much” these days seems fleeting, except perhaps to only the most plugged in.
Great examples of this model watch seem to the uninitiated to be flying around for 3X the price or more.
I’m with the others that say get the watch well serviced, put it on an awesome strap, and strut that some-bitch through thick and thin 👍
SEE ALSO MY NEXT POST
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,998
cvalue13
·The correct answer is no, they are unpolished.
And I’m glad you’ve raised it, because this to me is the difference being trampled here.
On your watch, note at the blue arrow the interior edges of the crown guards - which are still essentially sharp, and at 90 degree angles (see yellow arrow)
As far as “sleeve polish” goes, the reason these specific edges and angles are retained is obvious: no sleeve (or even delicate “jewelers cloth”) has any purchase on these recesses. Scratches, dings, an intermittent rounded section due to this-or-that wear - sure! But in the main, these recessed edges and angles are roughly there, no matter and in contrast to the “sleeve polish” that may have occurred at the outer facing faces and edges of any well worn watch.
Contrast yours to the same features of OP’s watch:
Notice that even the recessed edges (blue arrows), in stark contrast to the watch @Larry S posted, are - not dinged, or scratches here and there, but instead - uniformly softened.
Moreover, notice (at yellow arrow) that the once 90 degree angles are now more boomerang shaped.
Whatever someone wants to call these differences, they amount to a justifiable difference worth noting - having something to do with some form of “polishing”
None of which is say anything about whether it’s not still worth a price!
- Posts
- 86
- Likes
- 107
993watch
·i'm not sure what the reference to dogma on polish is referring to honestly so I will respond without using that word. In my view, there is a distinct difference,(speaking solely for myself to be clear), between a watch that was worn for years with some softening of lines, finish, etc. as a result of just being worn and a watch that has been buffed by a polishing wheel (not maybe touched with a cloth) resulting in the original finish being altered from such intervention. The market also reflects a premium for pieces that appear to not have had the latter type of mechanical intervention compared to the former.
- Posts
- 86
- Likes
- 107
993watch
·The example above, while interesting is not really an apples to apples comparison in my view. Watches from the matte era had much more hand finishing and different tolerances than a modern era watch made primarily by CNC machines. A case from the '70's may also exhibit some deformity from decades of wear. Case nuances aren't uniformly comparable from different eras due to changes incorporated over time as noted in an earlier response.
- Posts
- 2,169
- Likes
- 6,753
ATWG
·I have been following this thread, like many others before it, with interest. I firmly believe, that unless you know the provenance of a watch, it's extremely difficult to declare a it as unpolished.
I have handled a few 'unpolished' 1675's and own a couple 'unpolished' 16750's (one is an early matte dial which came right after the MK5 mentioned on this thread.) In my opinion, none of the ones I have observed/owned have rounded crown guards like the OP. I will also attest, quality of pictures makes a big difference. I have seen pictures of lug holes that look perfect w/o any cratering from one angle only to reveal the curvature around the holes from another view. Heck, I've taken a few of those pictures by accident!
IMHO, this watch has seen a polishing wheel in it's lifetime. I would never proclaim it as unpolished, that is a high hurdle for many serious collectors. I may be wrong, I won't be shy to admit it if I am, but my standard is very high when it comes to this question.
I have handled a few 'unpolished' 1675's and own a couple 'unpolished' 16750's (one is an early matte dial which came right after the MK5 mentioned on this thread.) In my opinion, none of the ones I have observed/owned have rounded crown guards like the OP. I will also attest, quality of pictures makes a big difference. I have seen pictures of lug holes that look perfect w/o any cratering from one angle only to reveal the curvature around the holes from another view. Heck, I've taken a few of those pictures by accident!
IMHO, this watch has seen a polishing wheel in it's lifetime. I would never proclaim it as unpolished, that is a high hurdle for many serious collectors. I may be wrong, I won't be shy to admit it if I am, but my standard is very high when it comes to this question.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,998
cvalue13
·IMHO, this watch has seen a polishing wheel in it's lifetime. I would never proclaim it as unpolished, that is a high hurdle for many serious collectors. I may be wrong, I won't be shy to admit it if I am, but my standard is very high when it comes to this question.
Adopting your same caveats (photos make the difference, etc.), I’m with you.
I’m also emphasizing that 993 appears to be making a distinctions around (1) from where the “polishing” originated, (2) the potentially poor/uninformed state of the case from the factory, as well as (3) the degree of polish.
Personally, if it looks buttery, I don’t care from where the effect originated. I only care about the cost of the butter.
I think OP did well for this butter.
- Posts
- 86
- Likes
- 107
993watch
·Nobody can be 100% sure unless they made the watch and have owned since it left the factory. That said, there are key tells that lead to describing a piece as likely unpolished and I’m referring to that in the figurative sense of being hit by a wheel as opposed to just worn over decades. If the piece in question was perhaps wiped with a jewelers cloth, that is possible. I still consider it to be in better condition to one that has been fully polished by a wheel and that is the standard most widely accepted. As noted, pics are not conclusive unless one has it in hand. I just took a pic of this gilt piece I’m wearing now. It’s considered to not be polished and possesses original chamfers and finish that is worn in some areas from years of use. Because of the light and angle of this specific pic for illustration purposes, you can’t really make out the satin finish that is present on the lug.
Edited:
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,937
JwRosenthal
·
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,998
cvalue13
·Enough of this Rolex bullshit- everybody SNORKEL!
*does the snorkel dance emphatically*
- Posts
- 2,169
- Likes
- 6,753
ATWG
·Nobody can be 100% sure unless they made the watch and have owned since it left the factory. That said, there are key tells that lead to describing a piece as likely unpolished and I’m referring to that in the figurative sense of being hit by a wheel as opposed to just worn over decades. If the piece in question was perhaps wiped with a jewelers cloth, that is possible. I still consider it to be in better condition to one that has been fully polished by a wheel and that is the standard most widely accepted. As noted, pics are not conclusive unless one has it in hand. I just took a pic of this gilt piece I’m wearing now. It’s considered to not be polished
and possesses original chamfers and finish that is worn in some areas from years of use. Because of the light and angle of this specific pic for illustration purposes, you can’t really make out the satin finish that is present on the lug.
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,937
JwRosenthal
·*does the snorkel dance emphatically*
