ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Kingface66 · 21 March 2017, 08:52 PM

I think of it like this:
If people can't decide on whether a particular watch is or isn't vintage, then it isn't vintage.
If it's unanimously agreed on that it is, then it is.

Daveyboyz · 22 March 2017, 12:40 AM

I consider anything older than 25 years to be vintage and anything older than 100 is antique.

Regardless the Explorer II still looks modern to me.

statsman · 22 March 2017, 01:47 AM

How about this? "If a servicing that replaces original hands or dial with NOS parts destroys its value, it's vintage."

swish77 · 22 March 2017, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karbo

To me only one box to check : tritium
I consider my 16700 vintage

Definitely agreed! Amazing patina! I hope the tritium eventually goes that dark on my 16700.

DadsSubm · 22 March 2017, 01:53 PM

Thanks guy. Guess my sub is vintage

21 March 2017, 08:52 PM	#31
Kingface66 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: The Empire State Watch: Many Posts: 3,459	I think of it like this: If people can't decide on whether a particular watch is or isn't vintage, then it isn't vintage. If it's unanimously agreed on that it is, then it is.

22 March 2017, 12:40 AM	#32
Daveyboyz "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: London Watch: AP Royal Oak Posts: 15	I consider anything older than 25 years to be vintage and anything older than 100 is antique. Regardless the Explorer II still looks modern to me.

22 March 2017, 01:47 AM	#33
statsman "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 394	How about this? "If a servicing that replaces original hands or dial with NOS parts destroys its value, it's vintage."

22 March 2017, 01:53 PM	#35
DadsSubm Banned Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Earth Posts: 61	Thanks guy. Guess my sub is vintage

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)