I have what on the face of it is a rather simple question - how do you define what is a vintage watch?

Does a specific period of time passing make a watch vintage?
Does it have to be no longer produced?
Does it have to be no longer produced in precisely the format it was in the past?
Does it have to have horological significance or current appreciation for it to become elevated above the merely old?

I'd be most interested to read your views.

Cheers David

 

Hi David,
That's a question I often used to ponder, trawling the net came up with various answers but most centred on age and the last consensus I came upon was any over thirty years.
As yourself I would be interested in other opinions.

 

I've heard anything from 20 to 30 years old, and I've even heard pre-quartz used. I'll stick with the Supreme Court definition: I know it when I see it.

 

I'm actually very good at spotting vintage, every morning in the mirror.

 

Actually, that brings up a second point about worth - for the term vintage to be properly applied it has to be valuable. Otherwise, it's just old.

 

That explains why Mrs never calls me a "Silly Vintage Man"

 

Alpha - may I say, what a lovely sleepy Beagle you have! My friend has "Ruby" and she's as lovely - as sleepy.

Anyway moving on... apologies for the delay in responding, the cold bug that is spreading around Edinburgh caught me out and delayed any ability I might have had to respond.

Indeed the definition can be as subjective as one likes. I'm still not sure whether something which is merely over say 25 years in age can be described as vintage. I think ulackfocus is correct to say that something has to possess current value to attain a status above mere age. For example, on a recent episode of The Antiques Roadshow, a member of the public brought along two beautiful pocket watches, in exquisite condition, from revered Swiss makers but they were only valued at about £1,000 a piece. While pocket watches can be amongst the most accurate and beautifully crafted of watches, they are not fashionable and so the value suffers. They have moved beyond the realm of "vintage" to "old."

In terms of the Speedmaster, which prompted my question, there is a unique set of circumstances operating, given that the current version is almost visually identical to the most prized vintage versions, the cal. 321s and especially the ST 105.012. When one considers the changes from the cal. 321 column wheel chronos, to the 861/1861 cam/lever, rhodium plated chronos there may be an argument that despite the aesthetic appeal of the stepped dial, applied logo and the historical significance, the 1861 is the more appropriate every day watch - reliability and serviceability being two key factors. The question of whether a vintage watch is then "worth it" is mute. My head says "no" but my heart says "yes." I suppose that in a nutshell is the essence of the collecting bug.

 

Thank you, it will happen at some stage I suspect, unless of course another "must have" rears its head.