I'm going to admit this: I really dislike beat-up watches. I find almost nothing appealing about them There - I said it...

I was watching an episode of "Mad Men," and everything in the 50's and 60's, at least on the surface, was clean and tidy. Would Don Draper ever be caught dead wearing a watch that was "untouched, but well-used"? Probably not - he would have brought it to his watchmaker, had it polished, maybe the dial re-done, and all was well.

So it got me thinking: do our tastes in these matters reflect the era that we were brought up in, and when our aesthetic sensibilities were formed? In other words, do the older members like things looking restored and spiffy, whereas the younger set, growing up in a culture were imperfection is better tolerated, are okay with things reflecting an honest life of use?

Just wondering...

 

Maybe a little cultural shift in the utility of things as well? Were there a lot of people in the 50s who collected and found value in things from the 1890s? Have antiques and vintage things always been highly regarded or is that a more modern trend? Maybe more people wanted the latest and greatest gadgets in the 50s because there were so many more new and innovative products being produced. Maybe we've run out of new ideas so old is now new and more people want the things they readily discarded decades ago as looking beat up and out of date.

 

I see a similar but different trend: ... customizing and vintaging stuff ...

just look at all the DISTRESSED watch straps, the premiums for FADED bezels, etc... it seems people will pay extra to appear OLD money ... implying that they had the 5513 since the 70ies ...

seems to be a global trend ... just look at NEW, distressed guitars



and up to a certain extent you get the equivalent in the watch-world as well



I guess people want to buy STREET CRED ... might be the hipster's credo ... I already had it before it was cool

 

also, i think the 50ies and 60ies were the most forward looking epocs.

Postwar jetplanes, cars always fancier, spacetravel, tv, colour-tv, etc... there was REAL progress in many parts of life... the sky seemed the limit, limitless economic post-war growth, just look at those typical tv-shows ...

it seems that this ended somewhat in the 70ies with a hangover ... "no-gas", unemployment, etc...

 

Yes...general malaise, and sloppiness. My grandfather never came to dinner without a jacket.

 

Remember that this site is full of collectors. Collectors aren't like the general population or even a regular watch enthusiast. Collectors want original - completely original. Yellow caseback gaskets inside a Constellation make us swoon. We're weird like that. I want lug facets so crisp that I can shave with them, but I'd live with a little ding on the edge if the rest of the watch was otherwise nice.

 

For me it's about pure nostalgia versus the appeal of vintage (and wear) that represents the time when the piece was designed. I'm on the fence about nostalgia for the sake of nostalgia. I love the Tudor Heritage Black Bay but still haven't pulled the trigger because I keep finding real vintage pieces that I want more. I'm also a vintage furniture collector and sure I could buy a pristine Noguchi coffee table or an Eames shell chair from DWR but there is something about the hunt for the same model that has lived 60 years and survived to be far more appealing. There is an honesty in the hunt that reenforces why I like design in the first place.

I think that Omega and Tudor are doing a good job of walking the fine line between elements that appeal to nostalgia with past design and straight up distressing which I find disgusting. That distressed Fender Strat is a great example of everything that is wrong with this idea for me.

 

The Don Draper comparison doesn't work because he wasn't a vintage collector. He was just a executive with a nice new watch. Walk into any big corporation boardroom and you see the same thing today. A bunch of guys in suits wearing shiny new expensive watches.

 

Like them both but so far apart from each other in condition, so can't explain.

 

Beat up watches..........love em!!
But maybe because I stopped my medication?

 

I love the positive nostalgia as much as anyone, but let's not kid ourselves, the 90's and 2000's have bright incredible technological advancement. The richest of billionaires in the 50's and 60's didn't have access to the kind of technology a poverty-level minimum wage earner of today does.

The appearance of "greater progress" likely stemmed when comparing life to memories of the Great Depression and the World War II period.

We as humans largely frame our perception by comparative analysis. We estimate our situation and forward movement by looking in the context of those around us and the time period recently passed. The 90's saw incredible technological and economic advancement, our current situation only seems "less impressive" compared to that.

 

I don't think this is related to age, nor is an affinity for antiques very popular.

When it comes to time-telling devices, the vast majority of people young and old opt for mobile phones, smart watches or fitness trackers.

Within society, there is a small subset of people that prefer mechanical watches. Within this subset is another much smaller subset of people who like and even prefer vintage pieces. I don't fall into this last group so I'd only be guessing, but I assume most of these would prefer great condition pieces over "beat-up" pieces.

 

I think a lot of older things, like the Toast-O-Lator, were better designed than a lot of newer things. I like them pristine, though, NOS if possible. People say of a beat-up watch "It's got a real history." Okay, but it's not MY history.

 

People don't marvel at improving technology like the 1950's because they expect it now.

 

You may be missing my point. I'm not talking about what Don would wear to a business meeting - it's about what kind of vintage watch he would tolerate, were he a collector during that era. And I can assure you, some of the well-worn examples that are acceptable nowadays would never pass muster then. It's about a different aesthetic sensibility; the evolution of which is the topic of speculation.

 

very interesting topic. i always thought that in certain cultures (indian, south/east asian, e.g.) 'aged' watches are considered junk; hence, the myriad redials, superpolished cases, etc etc...

 

This raises a very interesting issue: as the prices of Speedmasters continues to escalate, is our toleration of "lesser" examples due to a cultural shift regarding what appeals to us, or is it merely reflective of the steep price increases for prime examples?

 

Same as people driving old classic cars that are never as pristine as the top 10% in condition of the model. ( not everyone can afford a immaculate 911 but they buy a 911 because they want one)
There will always be the affordability/availability factor in vintage items.

 

I understand that. My point is that he only represented one segment of watch enthusiast then and that segment is still present. It's just one of many. A TV show aims to create one reality and pull you into that reality. In truth several coexist and whats most popular is always and has always been shifting.