Just picked up a 3590.50 that I'm waiting on delivery for, and as I'm new to Omega, wanted to know your thoughts on where the line is drawn between modern and vintage.

I believe that the 3590.50 was the last moon watch to use tritium (though the 3572.50 had a few of the early batches with it as well, but this came with a clear caseback) so I place it in the vintage bucket...even if it feels weird saying that for a watch that was built in the early-mid 90's.

So what do you think? Vintage / modern / somewhere in the middle?

 

If you listen to the interview with the Davidoff brothers by Wei Koh on revolution they would agree with you. Their view is that vintage is up to 1997 and the end of tritium. Going to be a moving goalpost I guess over time. Everyone will have a different view tho.

 

I don’t own any vintage and have no immediate plans to explore that segment. But soon enough I imagine vintage (in terms of Omega) will be referred to in terms of pre-METAS.

 

In general, I think any watch 30 years or older qualifies as vintage. IMO, the last of the tritium Speedmasters falls in that in between space of neither modern or vintage.

 

I remember something that @WatchVaultNYC said once, that eventually those born in the mid 90s will have the urge to find birth year watches and tritium bond seamasters will likely become a popular "vintage" item.

I agree that vintage is a moving goal post and that the end of the tritium era is a strong point in history.

 

With regards to speedmaster, I'm in the camp of vintage: 1957-1978, and then all the other ones.

But more broadly, there's a ton of articles like https://www.retrokids.com/blogs/news/what-s-the-difference-between-vintage-and-retro that try to describe it, and you can feel the tendril of truth through all of them, but it is still very hard to quantify.

Both from 71...

 

I think tritium is the cut off for vintage.

Probably easiest way to define the cut.

 

If your father would have bought it new, it's vintage.

If your grandfather would have bought it new, it's antique.

 

Tritium and 25yrs+

 

Being controversial, with Omega almost everything that is not Co-axial.

 

Tritium, plexiglass and “sufficient” age make up a vintage watch

 

Not quite. The std steel back 3570.50 had a tritium dial for a year 96-97. They are rare but pop up occasionally and normally cause people to scratch their heads or assume that the bracelet has been swapped on a 3590.

 

If it's a watch I've bought, then it's vintage ... If not, antique. Simples.

I realised yesterday that I have one watch that's less than 10 years old and I'd never worn it until yesterday. After that, I have one from 2001 and the next youngest is from 1985. The other hundred and :mumbles: are all pre 1973.

 

this is a good way to look at it. saying 90's may be fine for people not born yet, but thinking a watch from my highschool days is vintage seems a stretch to me.

 

for me, late '70s - early '80s is the cut-off. Newer than that is just a 'used' watch to me. I have a Seiko from '83, and I don't think of it as vintage.

 

Could work well for tool watches with luminous hands and dial, less than brilliant for dress watches without those

 

I might add that if you would have bought it new, then it's modern.

Vintage is relative to the wearer. For an old fart like me modern begins with the quartz crisis in the early 1970s, Vintage starts around the end of WW2 and everything prior to that is an antique.

 

I might say that if I could have afforded to buy it new in period, then it's modern. If it pre-dates me or my ability to pay for it, then to me, it's vintage