What does the landscape of future vintage Rolex even look like?

[rkny]

If condition is king with 1950-1980 Rolex, what will drive the market 40-50 years from now?

Will today’s 6 digit Subs have a place at the table in the future vintage market?

Scratches aside, won’t the overall condition of today’s watches generally be much better in the future, compared to watches from 50 years ago?

Luminova and chromalight don’t seem to develop patina.

Today’s tough ceramic bezels seem like they’ll look pretty much the same indefinitely, with a minimum of care. No more chipped black paint on faded aluminum bezels, or “pleasant” fading. How will future collectors know if a ceramic bezel or dial/hands have been replaced if they all look new more often than not? Will “all original” become meaningless?

Modern bracelets don’t stretch much.

Cases are much thicker now, so careful polishing may not be as noticeable.

Overall construction and materials are more advanced today. Tolerances tighter.

So what will there be to separate future vintage watches into categories, if not condition-based desirability? Will minute design changes be the biggest factor? Will the next generation of collectors be trading solely on the font thicknesses of various dial iterations, completely bypassing condition as a factor?

There’s also the matter of the shift in watch buying habits of watch enthusiasts today, compared to plastic crystal days. Compared to the 1970s, we have a LOT more people buying more than one watch, those who wear and flip, indecisive buyers with changes of heart, etc. all taking full advantage of a secondary market that didn’t even exist 50 years ago. Could these factors could all result in a potential abundance of very clean lightly worn modern watches in the future? We’re pretty much seeing that already, with online shops selling hundreds upon hundreds of post 2005 models that all look almost new. And let’s not forget Rolex is cranking out far more product today than they did 50 years ago…

Someone who bought a 1680 Sub in 1978 was much more likely to own just one watch, and wear it daily, thus making lightly worn 1680s much rarer than I think we’ll see going forward with ceramic Subs and the like.

I recently traded in my 2010 ceramic Sub Date and the dealer couldn’t believe it was over a decade old. It was that clean.

With manufacturing quality so high and homogeneous, and so many more people buying/selling/trading multiple watches that never take a beating, will we become stuck in a sort of permanent modern-Rolex era?

[KY..]

I don’t know about being stuck in a permanent modern Rolex era moving forward.
I am a huge fan of 60s to 90s Rolex models along with other common era brands.
Not only do I like the prototypical micro-mechanics and fit n finish of yesteryear but I also like the decades of aging that come with certain vintage paints and lumes used.
Sure the modern watches look great, but like you said, they will likely look exactly the same 30 years from now.
I personally don’t find that particularly pleasing or fun.
I read this in an article the other day.
“Modern watches are soulless, cold, shiny bling to me; whereas vintage watches have a soul, and the charm of imperfections.”
I would not say modern timepieces are soulless, but I would definitely say vintage timepieces have a soul and charm that accompany being perfectly imperfect.
And that is what attracted me in the beginning and has maintained my interest for over 25yrs of watch hobby-ing.
At the end of the day whatever your pleasure is, embrace it…

[bigrustypig]

It depends on all the hype and hoopla showered on vintage pieces.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rkny]

Originally Posted by KY..

I don’t know about being stuck in a permanent modern Rolex era moving forward.
I am a huge fan of 60s to 90s Rolex models along with other common era brands.
Not only do I like the prototypical micro-mechanics and fit n finish of yesteryear but I also like the decades of aging that come with certain vintage paints and lumes used.
Sure the modern watches look great, but like you said, they will likely look exactly the same 30 years from now.
I personally don’t find that particularly pleasing or fun.
I read this in an article the other day.
“Modern watches are soulless, cold, shiny bling to me; whereas vintage watches have a soul, and the charm of imperfections.”
I would not say modern timepieces are soulless, but I would definitely say vintage timepieces have a soul and charm that accompany being perfectly imperfect.
And that is what attracted me in the beginning and has maintained my interest for over 25yrs of watch hobby-ing.
At the end of the day whatever your pleasure is, embrace it…

Maybe I wasn’t being clear. The fact is, 50 years from now, a 2015 ceramic Sub will be vintage. What we consider to be vintage now, from the 1950s-1980s, will be made of pure 24K Unobtanium for the vast majority of collectors. 1970s Daytonas are already there.

So the question isn’t really about what we consider modern vs vintage today, it’s how will the next generation of collectors treat the next generation of vintage watches, which are our current modern watches. Because assuming no one will be able to afford 1970s sport Rolex, they’re likely to latch onto what they can afford, which will probably be the vast production of modern pieces we see today. We’re already seeing that happen with people suddenly coveting 5 digit models, as the honeymoon period of the first generation of 6 digit models starts to fade.

[Sandpit]

I guess we will see, but I personally think todays production quantities are so great that modern Rolex won’t be particularly collectible.

We may yet see certain patina of models, only time will tell. I do think though that dealers will probably latch on to certain dial variations with the whole “mark 1/2/3” nonsense. I recently read somebody trying to label the 116610LV as having a “mark 1” dial. People seem very desperate sometimes to make out that their watches are rare in some ways.

[rkny]

Originally Posted by Sandpit

I guess we will see, but I personally think todays production quantities are so great that modern Rolex won’t be particularly collectible.

We may yet see certain patina of models, only time will tell. I do think though that dealers will probably latch on to certain dial variations with the whole “mark 1/2/3” nonsense. I recently read somebody trying to label the 116610LV as having a “mark 1” dial. People seem very desperate sometimes to make out that their watches are rare in some ways.

There’s definitely already a delineation between 1st gen 116610 dials and later. And despite dealers pushing the hype, it’s us collectors/wearers that start the discussions and create the buzz that dealers seize upon.

[Henrimontgomery]

Because all watches will age gracefully, collectors will start to want the rare stuff. Deep blue will be popular, strange dials on datejusts and day date, and otherwise most of the highly produced and ultimately bland watches (submariner 6 series, GMTs, etc) will be forgotten.

[rkny]

Originally Posted by Henrimontgomery

Because all watches will age gracefully, collectors will start to want the rare stuff. Deep blue will be popular, strange dials on datejusts and day date, and otherwise most of the highly produced and ultimately bland watches (submariner 6 series, GMTs, etc) will be forgotten.

That’s what I would have assumed of the 14060 and 11660 that are currently getting a lot of attention.

[JonaG]

Excellent conditioned 6 digit sports professional full box and card will be 10-A-Penny in 40-50 years.

[zzenrocker]

Originally Posted by rkny

There’s definitely already a delineation between 1st gen 116610 dials and later. And despite dealers pushing the hype, it’s us collectors/wearers that start the discussions and create the buzz that dealers seize upon.

Could you elaborate about the dial issue? Or is there a link you could post? Thanks!

[Mendota]

I love this topic because I think about this very subject every time I look at my bookmarked pages and read about the vintage pieces that interest me. Will someone 60 years from now be looking through the current catalog and dreaming about owning any of these current models like I dream about the '50s and '60s pieces I love?

My grail pieces are the big crowns from the '50s. I also love the original 6542 GMT Master. Sadly, I think the ship has sailed and I may never own one of these amazing pieces. A 1972 red 1680 sub might be more obtainable someday, and of course I'm kicking myself for not pulling the trigger on several prime specimens I found 10 years ago before all of this insanity began.

Anyway, I often wonder if there's anything currently in production that will interest future watch lovers in the same way that these classic pieces interest me. Or will future watch lovers just continue pursuing the same classic pieces that we all love and respect? I think it's the latter.

It's almost like fine art. There's a reason why art by Carravagio, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, or Picasso are timeless. No matter what generation you are from, pieces from these artists will always be respected and admired because they are exceptional. I think the pieces from the golden age of Rolex are the same way.

Very fun thought experiment! Thanks for posting.



Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

[inadeje]

Great initiative for a thread OP.

I may be wrong but the annual volume of Rolex watches sold felt to be lower between the 60s to late 90s. It’s just the feeling I get as I recall those days in which certain references would languish in AD windows for ages, even after the reference had been discontinued or updated.

If the above theory is correct (can anyone chime in?) then there were overall less watches sold during that 30-40 year term. On a purely supply/demand equation this would render these neovintage watches scarce = higher price.

A second point is that during that era Rolex watches tended to be worn as intended. The term “worn to death” applies, in so much as many of the watches between that period could be unserviceable today with battered cases, destroyed bracelets or simply perished through water incursion, thus further reducing the amount ultimately available today = higher prices.

On the flip side, there’s the period to which the OP refers, say 2000 to today. As he clearly points out, the technology, materials and tolerances are significantly improved, meaning necessarily that watches from the era are likely to outlast their older pre-2000 brethren. For the sports line of Rolex we also experienced the emergence of the “supercase” which unto itself easily permits polish after polish having so much metal available without affecting the case proportions too much. This allied to the much higher quality bracelets could render these post 2000 pieces pretty indestructible.

The final and probably most important difference is the seismic difference in wearer habits. While watches worn between 60s to late 90s were truly worn as tool watches (Padi chime in?) our whole employment scene and landscape of Rolex wearers has transitioned (mainly) to office dwellers and white collar professionals whose Rolex see little more than a desk dive throughout their lifetimes. Once again, this lends itself to more (in comparison to 60s - late 90s) well preserved pieces being available = lower future value?

So to recap. If we look at the above panorama and factor-in all the variables while applying a a liberal dose of logic, can we assume?

*60-90s overall less good condition watches available for sale = higher price
*2000s to today - high volumes of better manufactured lightly worn watches available = lower price

[RotorSelfWinding]

I can't project down the road, but based on how these pieces don't really age and super fakes are rampant, expect boxes, papers to be all time high in value.

[dwelling seas]

no idea, i am also on classic cars, and hence who would have predicted that pollution and emissions would play such a role in classic car maket...

...on the black swan on watches,...

[afmars]

Originally Posted by inadeje

Great initiative for a thread OP.

I may be wrong but the annual volume of Rolex watches sold felt to be lower between the 60s to late 90s. It’s just the feeling I get as I recall those days in which certain references would languish in AD windows for ages, even after the reference had been discontinued or updated.

If the above theory is correct (can anyone chime in?) then there were overall less watches sold during that 30-40 year term. On a purely supply/demand equation this would render these neovintage watches scarce = higher price.

A second point is that during that era Rolex watches tended to be worn as intended. The term “worn to death” applies, in so much as many of the watches between that period could be unserviceable today with battered cases, destroyed bracelets or simply perished through water incursion, thus further reducing the amount ultimately available today = higher prices.

On the flip side, there’s the period to which the OP refers, say 2000 to today. As he clearly points out, the technology, materials and tolerances are significantly improved, meaning necessarily that watches from the era are likely to outlast their older pre-2000 brethren. For the sports line of Rolex we also experienced the emergence of the “supercase” which unto itself easily permits polish after polish having so much metal available without affecting the case proportions too much. This allied to the much higher quality bracelets could render these post 2000 pieces pretty indestructible.

The final and probably most important difference is the seismic difference in wearer habits. While watches worn between 60s to late 90s were truly worn as tool watches (Padi chime in?) our whole employment scene and landscape of Rolex wearers has transitioned (mainly) to office dwellers and white collar professionals whose Rolex see little more than a desk dive throughout their lifetimes. Once again, this lends itself to more (in comparison to 60s - late 90s) well preserved pieces being available = lower future value?

So to recap. If we look at the above panorama and factor-in all the variables while applying a a liberal dose of logic, can we assume?

*60-90s overall less good condition watches available for sale = higher price
*2000s to today - high volumes of better manufactured lightly worn watches available = lower price

I agree with this and will add that the Rolexes of today’s “investment” era will lack the nostalgia factor associated with the current vintage pieces, further lowering the price.

when current models are discontinued we will see a decline in value as today’s collector is driven by newness/hotness/hype. Look at the last generation submariner and explorer II compared to the recent releases for example.

[KY..]

Originally Posted by Mendota

It's almost like fine art. There's a reason why art by Carravagio, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, or Picasso are timeless. No matter what generation you are from, pieces from these artists will always be respected and admired because they are exceptional. I think the pieces from the golden age of Rolex are the same way.

Very fun thought experiment! Thanks for posting.

I totally AGREE…

[rkny]

Originally Posted by zzenrocker

Could you elaborate about the dial issue? Or is there a link you could post? Thanks!

1. There’s no “issue”.
2. I’m not interested in adding to a future dealer’s hype over a minuscule font difference.
3. Google.

[Dirt]

Excellent question
Condition will always be king but I anticipate everything will be measured and graded to the nth degree.
The future generations will find a way to do it.
People are buying timeographers now days and future generations in 50 years will be scanning case shapes with laser gear of some description and measuring deflection in bracelets etc, etc.
They may even be grading watches on the orientation of the Cononet on the Winding crown

[donq]

Just look at the Porsche market to see. Vintage and classic models just get more expensive.
As they do, newer models take their place in the price ladder. A few are undesired for various reasons (style/quality issues).
I don’t see vintage Rolex depreciating dramatically in the future. They might take a temporary hit, like they did in 2008, but the overall trend will continue upwards.

My 2 cents.

[WilsdorfNDavis]

Originally Posted by Sandpit

I guess we will see, but I personally think todays production quantities are so great that modern Rolex won’t be particularly collectible.

There are a few modern Rolexes that will be popular due to their rarity...the 116600's for example.

Shortest production run in Rolex history so far.

[zzenrocker]

Enjoy what you like today. It's impossible to say what people will want in six months, let alone 50 years from now