Lonestar
·Hi guys,
I'm a Rolex virgin... but I've been eyeing 1675's for a while now, as I'm looking for a reasonably priced ( ie mildly into the 5-digit $ prices as opposed wildly into that range... heck, even the low range is not reasonable at all, when one thinks about it!), nicely patinated regular wearer (not beater).
As I'm slowly doing my homework and learning the ropes, I am confused again and again by some of the cosmetically perfect 1675's from the 70's that are hitting the specialized forums time after time. Then again some questions are tough to ask, especially as a non-native speaker, without making them look like they are accusing some sellers (which they aren't!). So please bear with me here, and let me know in case you feel this has crossed the line, and help me reword this is a totally neutral manner in case it has - thanks in advance for your help 😀
Some well-known sellers seem to have a regular supply of perfect beige/brown-patina-indices-dials, with matching hands, and inserts that look vintage and patinated although not "worn out" - month after month. This is statistically baffling to me... I have shared some of my concerns with some other real-life (meaning: that I know personnally as opposed to just "behind a keyboard") watch enthusiasts. They have mentionned that I should be extremely cautious about "perfect looking" GMT's (same for Subs, but they aren't my thing... yet!). Then there is also the odd mention on reputable watch blogs about artificially patinated 1675's, and Italy is often pointed at, for instance. This all makes me feel very, very nervous, as I am worried there is a lot more knowledge in the community about cosmetically-enhanced aged-to-perfection watches, than is really shared.
Can someone care to educate me about the tell-tale signs of watches to stay away from? I am not talking about service dials, non-period-matching components or frankens, or chamfers that have been polished like heck, but more about artistically processed timepieces that actually look much better than they really should...
Thank you in advance for your kind help,
Paul
I'm a Rolex virgin... but I've been eyeing 1675's for a while now, as I'm looking for a reasonably priced ( ie mildly into the 5-digit $ prices as opposed wildly into that range... heck, even the low range is not reasonable at all, when one thinks about it!), nicely patinated regular wearer (not beater).
As I'm slowly doing my homework and learning the ropes, I am confused again and again by some of the cosmetically perfect 1675's from the 70's that are hitting the specialized forums time after time. Then again some questions are tough to ask, especially as a non-native speaker, without making them look like they are accusing some sellers (which they aren't!). So please bear with me here, and let me know in case you feel this has crossed the line, and help me reword this is a totally neutral manner in case it has - thanks in advance for your help 😀
Some well-known sellers seem to have a regular supply of perfect beige/brown-patina-indices-dials, with matching hands, and inserts that look vintage and patinated although not "worn out" - month after month. This is statistically baffling to me... I have shared some of my concerns with some other real-life (meaning: that I know personnally as opposed to just "behind a keyboard") watch enthusiasts. They have mentionned that I should be extremely cautious about "perfect looking" GMT's (same for Subs, but they aren't my thing... yet!). Then there is also the odd mention on reputable watch blogs about artificially patinated 1675's, and Italy is often pointed at, for instance. This all makes me feel very, very nervous, as I am worried there is a lot more knowledge in the community about cosmetically-enhanced aged-to-perfection watches, than is really shared.
Can someone care to educate me about the tell-tale signs of watches to stay away from? I am not talking about service dials, non-period-matching components or frankens, or chamfers that have been polished like heck, but more about artistically processed timepieces that actually look much better than they really should...
Thank you in advance for your kind help,
Paul
Edited:





