Is Patina dead?

[samson66]

Originally Posted by blabus

+1. I also can't stand the trend of new watches being produced with fake "patina" (looking at you Omega).

Agree (looking at you Tudor as well)

Can't stand fauxtina and have sworn never to buy a watch with it

[Chester01]

It’s dead, though it has to do more with the pampering and incessant worry about every little thing and people using their gshocks for things that the Rolex can handle just fine. So for the 99% here, yes patina is dead. Not for this guy though. More life to live in my 16610 before it sees me off to the grave.

[Bryan81]

Not a fan of patina. Happy to see that my GMT II from 1999 has a dial and hands that look like they could have been manufactured yesterday. I think it's a good looking watch. Why would I want it to start looking like it's degrading and damaged?

[Paul7]

Lots of patina on modern PCL watches, my wife has had her 31DJ two years and the PCL area looks like the brushed stainless next to it. Fine with me, I don't like PCLs.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by Chester01

It’s dead, though it has to do more with the pampering and incessant worry about every little thing and people using their gshocks for things that the Rolex can handle just fine.

Exactly so, witness the recent thread about wearing Rolex to the gym, some were aghast anyone would do so. If you think of Rolex as a tool watch as the older ones were, no problem, if you see them as expensive jewelry to be obsessed over, I guess you won't wear to the gym.

[Santiago32]

Is patina also dead with modern Tudor?

I’m sure BB58 bezels will fade over time. But curious about the dial, lume etc.

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by Paul7

Exactly so, witness the recent thread about wearing Rolex to the gym, some were aghast anyone would do so. If you think of Rolex as a tool watch as the older ones were, no problem, if you see them as expensive jewelry to be obsessed over, I guess you won't wear to the gym.

Question though - aren’t modern Rolexes expensive jewelry? With steel models that happen to have ceramic bezels with platinum markers, white gold hands and hour markers, and often beautifully polished surfaces?

Sure, in terms of capability all Rolexes can accomplish tool-watch functions. Even an OP or DJ has greater water resistance than the first generation Submariner; and watches like the SD43 and DSSD have capabilities that go beyond what 99.9999% of humans would ever need them for (my number is actually quite conservative considering there have been more people in space than humans beyond a certain depth).

But they are still set up as expensive jewelry ...just highly capable jewelry.

Kind of like the horological equivalent of a Rolls Royce Cullinan - sure, it can drive across marshes and bash its way through mire and muck. However, as much as it’s functional, there’s no denying it’s an expensive luxury car.

Same for Rolex - it is expensive luxury jewelry, that just happens to have a very high level of functionality.

As for taking a watch to the gym versus obsessing over one ...I think there’s a middle ground. Enjoying one’s watch with wild abandon without worrying over every gust of wind, but at the same time not necessarily lifting weights or wrestling gators with it on. I think there’s a wide swathe of middle ground possible ...

[joli160]

I’d be extremely disappointed if my watches develop Patina, not a fan of rusty hands, damaged dials nor brittle lume

[berchris]

I’ll dissent in opinion. I personally like patina on some watches. But again, I also think modern Rolex watches look kind of lame with ceramic bezels and whatnot.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

Question though - aren’t modern Rolexes expensive jewelry?

Yes, which is why I have no interest in the new ones, being a 'tool watch' guy. Not making a judgement, but others have a 'look at me' view. I own a 16570 Exp. II and inherited DJ36, both fairly under the radar models. To me, a PM Sub is an oxymoron. YMMV

With steel models that happen to have ceramic bezels with platinum markers, white gold hands and hour markers, and often beautifully polished surfaces?

Sure, in terms of capability all Rolexes can accomplish tool-watch functions. Even an OP or DJ has greater water resistance than the first generation Submariner; and watches like the SD43 and DSSD have capabilities that go beyond what 99.9999% of humans would ever need them for (my number is actually quite conservative considering there have been more people in space than humans beyond a certain depth).

But they are still set up as expensive jewelry ...just highly capable jewelry.

Kind of like the horological equivalent of a Rolls Royce Cullinan - sure, it can drive across marshes and bash its way through mire and muck. However, as much as it’s functional, there’s no denying it’s an expensive luxury car.

I would compare to someone buying a Range Rover and never taking it offroad because they're afraid it will get scratched. There are nations whose military use that vehicle today.

Same for Rolex - it is expensive luxury jewelry, that just happens to have a very high level of functionality.

As for taking a watch to the gym versus obsessing over one ...I think there’s a middle ground. Enjoying one’s watch with wild abandon without worrying over every gust of wind, but at the same time not necessarily lifting weights or wrestling gators with it on. I think there’s a wide swathe of middle ground possible ...

I don't change my own oil or do construction, but there's no activity I do that I wouldn't wear my Exp. II for, it is a 'sport' watch, right? IMHO you're just as likely to scratch it getting in your car as the gym. In the gym thread not one person said they ever had their watch damaged there after I asked that question.

[Brian Page]

This thread surprises me quite frankly. I would have expected more love for a nice patina on certain models. For me it's one of the most attractive features of my 5513 Sub. Not a fan of faux at all, but a nice natural patina on a GMT or sub is beautiful in my opinion.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by Brian Page

This thread surprises me quite frankly. I would have expected more love for a nice patina on certain models. For me it's one of the most attractive features of my 5513 Sub. Not a fan of faux at all, but a nice natural patina on a GMT or sub is beautiful in my opinion.

Considering the prices they get for them, the market agrees with you.

[VanPatten14]

Originally Posted by Brian Page

This thread surprises me quite frankly. I would have expected more love for a nice patina on certain models. For me it's one of the most attractive features of my 5513 Sub. Not a fan of faux at all, but a nice natural patina on a GMT or sub is beautiful in my opinion.

Agree. Especially if the patina has developed over time while owning the watch. I think that was the OP's point, and in my opinion, it would be really cool to see how some of my watches have aged as time has passed. The connection with the watch would be greater imo, as both owner and watch have aged together.

[hambone1983]

rather have a watch looking crispy new than beaten & faded. I think even the true vintage buffs will admit to this preference.

At the same time I find myself rolling my eyes at some of the hyperventilation and pearl-clutching about how some scoundrel "over polished" his treasure, questioning whether or not it's safe to wear a rugged Rolex if the window on the Porsche is rolled down or frantically trying to figure out what to do if a spec of cheap red caviar is spilled on it.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by hambone1983

rather have a watch looking crispy new than beaten & faded. I think even the true vintage buffs will admit to this preference.

So why to some vintage models with quite visible wear sell for more than crispy new ones?

[NIHO]

so while the dial, hands, bezel, case are for the most part unchanged, the same cannot be said for the bracelet. I had it brushed after 11 years of hating PCL, but I am not referring to scratches, but rather stretch from a tough life.

[hambone1983]

Originally Posted by Paul7

So why to some vintage models with quite visible wear sell for more than crispy new ones?

while this is true, those vintage models with visible wear most certainly do not sell for more than the same vintage model that is better condition.

I think patina became a proxy for a watch with its original parts, which is preferable to a watch that has been restored and potentially modified or has replacement parts.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by hambone1983

while this is true, those vintage models with visible wear most certainly do not sell for more than the same vintage model that is better condition.

True, I was referring to a vintage model with wear selling for more than a new version of the same model.

[ciceroyeah]

I think it has more to do with functionality, authenticity and warmth. I've seen beautiful warm creamy lume plots that look perfect on a 1970s sub with a chunky beat-up superdome adding more character and a sense of personality to the piece than any contemporary lumen/sapphire sub has. Subtlety is the key though, the charm coming from natural material aging processes, not just damage caused by rough use, water ingress, or poor servicing.

[2nastie]

Patina will come. But likely over many decades if not longer (under normal conditions). Modern construction and materials of watches just makes it rarer to come by. I'm sure if you left the watch baking in the Nevada dessert or sun somewhere for long periods of time the dial will start to brown.

I remember someone on the forum exposing/wearing a modern Sub or Explorer 2 consistently on the beach in the sun for the past few years; when comparing it to the identical watch he bought for his father at the same time the dial appeared browner between the two.

[BLNR Nairobi]

Originally Posted by Paul7

So why to some vintage models with quite visible wear sell for more than crispy new ones?

Simple. Because they are rare and unique vintages.

I am certain that:

1) if by some miracle two ref. 6200 Submariners were found, and one was extremely well preserved and the other had heavy patina, that the better preserved one would sell for much more. Both would sell for a pretty penny, but the better preserved one would sell for much more.

2) If there were two (brand new) Tudor Black Bay Bronze M79250BA-0001 for sale, and although they were both new, one of them had fallen into some brine (and was thus heavy with patina) while the other didn’t (and thus looked sparkly new) - that the one that still looked new would sell for more than the one with heavy patina.

Meaning - all things equal, a better-preserved piece will sell for more than the same type of time instrument that has heavy patina.

Now, if one watch is a Bao Dai and the other is a brand new Date Just, obviously the vintage will outsell the modern watch.

But if both are vintage and one is better preserved, or both are modern and one has heavy patina - in both cases the better preserved watch will sell for more all things equal.

[krosenest]

I've never been a fan of the patina. I try to avoid any scratches or marks of wear anywhere. That's just me. I feel that longevity is a sign of quality and it's frustrating to me if someone says a piece is going to develop a patina besides the leather strap.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

Oh, interesting.

I thought "patina" was just German for "crappy looking aging"

The origin of 'Patina' is Italian but you probably mixed Italian and German with British and USA

[aayates]

Bronze models seem to revel in patina looks. I polished my oris brashear chrono for a while (I just liked to bright look), but after a time I realized I really wanted a yg watch and bought a vintage 1990 DD.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by BLNR Nairobi

Simple. Because they are rare and unique vintages.

I am certain that:

1) if by some miracle two ref. 6200 Submariners were found, and one was extremely well preserved and the other had heavy patina, that the better preserved one would sell for much more. Both would sell for a pretty penny, but the better preserved one would sell for much more.

2) If there were two (brand new) Tudor Black Bay Bronze M79250BA-0001 for sale, and although they were both new, one of them had fallen into some brine (and was thus heavy with patina) while the other didn’t (and thus looked sparkly new) - that the one that still looked new would sell for more than the one with heavy patina.

Meaning - all things equal, a better-preserved piece will sell for more than the same type of time instrument that has heavy patina.

Now, if one watch is a Bao Dai and the other is a brand new Date Just, obviously the vintage will outsell the modern watch.

But if both are vintage and one is better preserved, or both are modern and one has heavy patina - in both cases the better preserved watch will sell for more all things equal.

I have already agreed on this, my point was a vintage Sub with patina will sell for more than a brand new Sub, which is harder to get. Falling into brine is sort of an artificial patina, not what we're discussing. That would just be plain damage.

[dwjez14]

A friend once told me
If it’s patina get something cleaner haha

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Brian Page

This thread surprises me quite frankly. I would have expected more love for a nice patina on certain models. For me it's one of the most attractive features of my 5513 Sub. Not a fan of faux at all, but a nice natural patina on a GMT or sub is beautiful in my opinion.

This is an interesting thing I have noticed on forums.

Essentially this is run of similar, somewhat contrary to expectation, opinions running in sequence.

If this was posted on a different day, could be completely different comments preferring patina.

Post in vintage forum? Guaranteed different comments.

That being said, I can’t see natural patina occurring with modern lume.

[42itus]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

This is an interesting thing I have noticed on forums.

Essentially this is run of similar, somewhat contrary to expectation, opinions running in sequence.

If this was posted on a different day, could be completely different comments preferring patina.

Post in vintage forum? Guaranteed different comments.

That being said, I can’t see natural patina occurring with modern lume.

As usual, your comment is spot on. I personally like how vintage watches are sometimes very unique due to aging.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Delawareguy]

I purchased this watch in 1985. It’s been serviced twice but looks
pretty good!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

Haha i should have clarified. I have that one but I’m thinking more the blue one with actual patina. The bb58 is more gilt. The insert should fade over time as it’s anodized aluminum.

Haha. The blue one would be interesting. Is there an older blue dial Rolex or some other model with patina to see what it would look like?