This discussion came forward in another topic, as I think this is an interesting discussion point among collectors, what is your stance on the ‘vintage parts shopping’ we see a lot these days? My opinion below:

To be honest, I REALLY dislike that people these days are considering a vintage speedmaster as a candy shop in which they can combine ‘the best parts’ any way they like. Just leave the watch as it is and stop creating frankenwatches which never left the factory that way. What is the beautiful lifetime story of a vintage Speedy once you puzzle it together from parts? Really, really dislike this kind of thing, which is why I settled for no less than a barn find 69er, unmolested and original.

These beautiful pieces tell a story, who are we to start demolishing, puzzling, combining,...?

 

I cannot see a problem, if you have a nicer bezel, dial,hands,crown,glass or any other part you wish to fit to your own watch and you are happy doing it.
My 2998 had what looked like corrosion on the reflector ring, I did not want it affecting the dial so swapped it for one without corrosion. I have labelled the corroded part and placed it in the Watch box with the Watch.
I think the problem in peoples eyes arises when things are not disclosed when a person comes to sell the Watch.
Either way if the parts are period correct and I was happy with how the Watch looked I would be happy enough to buy it.
Sometimes the whole movement could be swapped and if it is correct in serial range or via the archives how would one even know?
I guess it is down to personal preference.
In an ideal world I would prefer all original of course.
Thanks, Michael

 

Finding the nice parts is great fun for me and many others.
There was a time when it was watches, the old collectors remember surely...

 

This same tension exists in virtually every antique field.

Try and stop someone who has a 105.003 with a shitty bezel from taking a pristine one off a 145.012-67 and swapping them. Despite protestations, most of us would do that. Doesn’t mean it’s entirely okay, but it wouldn’t stop most of us.

I agree with you that I’d rather have a watch that is as original as possible, hence the attraction of watches claimed to have sat in a drawer for 50 years. But, I’d also like to have my watches looking their best.

Take the below contrast, between how I bought this 105.003-64 and its improvement by putting a better bezel on it.



I think most people here would have done the same thing with this watch. Btw, the bezel was bought separately; I did not take it off another watch (someone else did).

When I was collecting eye dropper Waterman fountain pens, my favorite users were size 6, 8 and 10 (also known as size 20) pens, all relatively rare. For awhile, I bought every decent 16, 18 and 20 Waterman eye dropper I came across, so long as the nibs were straight and clean, still had iridium and were smooth - as parts pens. It’s the only way I can maintain the pens I use every day.

On the other hand, I have a Waterman from the early 1890’s, size 5, that certainly has never seen ink since it left the factory. Any Waterman from before 1900 is pretty rare, let alone one that still has all its original bits and never been used.

I have not touched that pen, not even to try writing with it.

Unlike pens, I don’t buy watches to pull them apart, but I do buy parts from people that do. That’s the truth.

All the watches can’t/won’t survive into the far future. Might as well make those that survive the nicest?

My point is that as nice as it is, being black and white about this issue, secretly, very few of us are really that much to one extreme or another.

We will all agree with you in principle, while we again are quietly trading parts between lesser and greater watches.

 

At the end of the day, these are material possessions and people should do what they want with them. Yes they are "historical", but basically everything is in some regard. If someone were swapping parts on the watches literally taken into space, then ok I have an issue with this.

As long as the seller is honest and discloses everything, then I am fine with it.

I put a custom Mickey-Mouse dial on my 2998-3; there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Pictures, or it didn’t happen!

I think most OF members would disagree with you and say there is something wrong with that!

 

I think this swapping of pieces and ‘upgrading’ your watch is a really terrible practice. I know most of the collectors on the forum don’t mind and actually do this kind of thing, but it just doesn’t sit right with me.

If you don’t like your bezel, just buy a better example of the watch with a better bezel. This whole ‘lets demolish a perfectly fine watch and sell the parts to the ones in the market with the biggest wallet’ really bothers me. Also because Speedmaster parts have become a major ‘money thing’ this way. You can actually upgrade your watch and make it worth more. Where is the respect for these old things that have lived for decades?

I have a very nice 69er, and tearing it apart would break my heart.

But hey, that’s my vision on the matter Just curious as to what other people think as this appears to have become common practice, and I’m not sure we all have thought it through til the end.

 

I wish it was this easy. Most 50 year old watches have issues that require attention. A watch with a better bezel will likely have other problems.

Not the reason I do it. And I suspect that for most OF members, it’s not their reason either.

There’s more than one way to show respect for old things. Restoring them to closer to original condition, including getting them running again, might, to some, seem like a better way to ‘respect’ them.

I agree, we all have different perspectives. And I do share your alarm at the willy nilly tearing apart of perfectly good watches. But, I don’t see it as black and white as you do.

@septentrio : would you replace a B2 crown on a nice 105.003-65 with an A1? Where would that crown come from?

 

1. Watches are products of the industry and not work of arts, even if you consider them to be.
2. All parts were designed to be interchangeable to maintain the good condition of watches.
3. We can do it with a lot of respect or not.

Just imagine that the balance staff is broken, will you leave the watch as is. I wouldn’t.

 

..........or the mainspring

 

If "original" means the part was installed at the factory during production of the watch, then I assert that for 99.9% of vintage watches - watches that have potentially passed through many hands over decades of time, perhaps receiving multiple services - originality of a a part simply cannot be known with certainty and is a meaningless term.

I’m perfectly good with "correct" meaning the part matches an "original" part and was produced contemporaneously, though it was installed on the watch later, perhaps as part of a service, replacing the "original".

Even a “barn find”, allowing for the occassional extraordinary exception, can only be assumed to be original.

So, change that bezel if you want, install that nicer handset —- and enjoy that beauty while you own it, but disclose the changes YOU made (or know about) if you sell.

 

NASA did. Military repair loops do this all the time. They don’t care about the underlying provenance of a watch because it is a tool that needs to be kept working within acceptable tolerances. However, IMHO collectors shouldn’t do this just because of the vanity of having the best looking watch - IMHO that’s not collecting, that’s not in the spirit of the hobby, it’s renovation. The difference between maintenance, restoration and renovation is vast.

Edit: I should have said: IMHO that’s not collecting, that’s not in the spirit of the hobby, it’s restoration. The difference between preservation, conservation and restoration is vast. Renovation is what Omega (often) does when you send them your vintage watch.

 

So why then don’t collectors pay top dollar for the best looking, best functioning watch with service parts?

That's maintenance, or restoration, not renovation.

 

Well.... If these collectors forums didn't exist, and Omega were left to their own devices, just about every Speedmaster would be an 'Official Omega franken'! A 50 year old collection of Omega service parts!

Thankfully, there are still family owned, vintage, Speedmasters, with provenance around. I have my Dad's 1960's reference on the table next to me. It is now vintage correct although, not entirely original. It, originally, had a flat link bracelet which was broken, when I was a kid, and replaced by an early 1970's 1171/633 replacement. It has been coupled with the watch for almost half a century. I suppose, If I wanted to, I could have the early 1970's, service, 32 tooth crown and hand set re-fitted. For now I prefer it '105.012-65 correct'.

Last year, the watch with it's 321 movement was serviced and one or two parts needed to be replaced. I have all the bits in a little bag. To me correct or incorrect it's all part of my vintage Speedmaster's history. For most of it's life it was a watch that 'went to work' out and about in the City of London. It did it's job for 50 years and is still ticking sweetly.

I'm pleases me to think that, when I eventually move my watch on, it will go to it's new owner with a real history. That history involves replacement parts.

 

I see nothing wrong with swapping out period correct and non-service parts which are in better condition. A frankenwatch implies that non period correct parts or even worse, parts from a totally different watch were used.

It is part of the restoration process and can be fun.

 

@nonuffinkbloke :

I agree with you: if I came in possession of a watch with provenance, I would do exactly as you are doing with yours. I doubt I’ll ever have that opportunity though.

(I treat my limited editions the way you are treating your beautiful -65.)

But my watches come to me with wounds and repairs (good and bad). Within certain parameters, I try to improve them and actually make them closer to how they looked when they were less ‘experienced’.

I don’t polish cases and I won’t put a perfect bezel on a watch that’s obviously been well worn. But, I will try to replace bad hands, bad bezels and service crowns. I won’t replace service pushers, but I would a service dial.

Go figure. It’s easy to articulate clever philosophies, but in practice I bet there’s less difference among us than this thread would lead one to believe. And in practice, we all blur the lines from time to time.

 

It also depends on the price. Sometimes a watch with absolutely correct and perfect parts will cost 10,000 but you see a watch which has cracked lume on the hands going for 7,000. It would make sense to me to buy that watch and source for the correct hands which would cost less than 3,000.

 

You paid for it so it’s your watch and you can do what you want with it. As long as you disclose what you did when you sell the watch I have no meaningful issues with replacing parts for cosmetic reasons or otherwise.

 

These are interesting discussions. For what it's worth, in the vintage musical instrument world there's a big gap in the way collectors and musicians feel about originality and authenticity. Musicians tend to be pretty unsentimental about their tools, and anyway mostly work in environments where their instruments are in harm's way. Near-mint condition guitars and stuff from 50 years ago just seem aberrant, like someone loved them so much they decided never to take them out of their cases. That might be where the comparison with watches ends—a guitar operates pretty straightforwardly, so if it plays well and sounds good, cosmetic damage doesn't usually portend any serious issues. Dings or a bunch of replacement components on a watch, I suppose, would be more ominous in terms of it becoming unusable without expensive intervention.

Now that I think of it, the weird attraction I had for misfit vintage instruments makes my collection unlikely to be worth much. I'm probably also in little danger of my pile of watches becoming any kind of investment, rather than being small metal portals into which my money disappears.