TeeJay Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 I was just wondering if there was any particular ruling or school of thought about if the hands and dial should match? I've seen a few watches with the vintage dials, where the hands have been much whiter than the dial... Should they match, or is it just a personal preference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shundi Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 I was just wondering if there was any particular ruling or school of thought about if the hands and dial should match? I've seen a few watches with the vintage dials, where the hands have been much whiter than the dial... Should they match, or is it just a personal preference? I guess my personal thought is that if you're going to do vintage you should do it to the "Ideal" vintage that is: In gen vintages, many parts are replaced over time if the owner services the watch etc so having hands that are whiter than the dial isn't necessarily "wrong" but it does take some of the vintage out of vintage....if that makes any sense. My personal preference is to get my vintages to look like they've sat in a box for the last 60 years or so or have been gently worn without having any external parts replaced... I like the uniformity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 If the hands & dial markers do not match, then I am always suspicious because it usually means that the hands are either a different vintage than the dial or that the hands spent alot of time in a different environment than the dial. Either usually means that they did not come from the factory (in Switzerland) on the same watch. Now, of course, if a vintage watch is serviced by Rolex, they usually replace original tritium parts with new Luminova parts (Rolex is notorious for being either ignorant of or dismissive towards the value/rarity of their own vintage watches) to be sure the watch meets specs. So having mismatched parts does not necessarily mean franken or rep. But, like I said, it always causes closer scrutiny when encountered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 It's certainly always nice if the hands and dial match, but not necessary. A slight variation is not unusual. But if the variation is much more, as Freddy says, it is reason for concern. But when a watch is 30, 40 or more years old, having the original set of hands becomes more and more unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shundi Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 It's certainly always nice if the hands and dial match, but not necessary. A slight variation is not unusual. But if the variation is much more, as Freddy says, it is reason for concern. But when a watch is 30, 40 or more years old, having the original set of hands becomes more and more unlikely. Exactly although when my vintages were modded / when I've done my own very humble mods I def. go for the "gold standard" of having everything match closely as if to appear all original... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Thanks for the responses, amigos You've pretty much confirmed my original thoughts that 'uniformity' does lend to the overall image Bearing that in mind, I might still consider installing vintaged sword hands in my GMT Submariner, but I'm still in two minds about it... How do folks think a watch with a vintage dial and hands would look in a brand spanking new case? Not so much a 'factory fresh' case, as anything can be scuffed up a little But more of say, having the case for a current watch, but containing the vintage dial and hands? An interesting juxtaposition of the old and new, or just an inconsistent and jumbled mess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docblackrock Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Thanks for the responses, amigos You've pretty much confirmed my original thoughts that 'uniformity' does lend to the overall image Bearing that in mind, I might still consider installing vintaged sword hands in my GMT Submariner, but I'm still in two minds about it... How do folks think a watch with a vintage dial and hands would look in a brand spanking new case? Not so much a 'factory fresh' case, as anything can be scuffed up a little But more of say, having the case for a current watch, but containing the vintage dial and hands? An interesting juxtaposition of the old and new, or just an inconsistent and jumbled mess? You're asking about vintage specs and preferences, and then talking about applying them to a "GMT Submariner"? is that some hithero unknown ultra rare model from the late 50s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 You're asking about vintage specs and preferences, and then talking about applying them to a "GMT Submariner"? is that some hithero unknown ultra rare model from the late 50s? The GMT Submariner is a bastardized hybrid of my own creation. There's a tag line on a British TV advert for a brand of wood stains: "It does what it says on the tin..." (the guys who actually advertise the product tend to look like they drink the stuff rather than staining their woods, but that's another story ) That is the philosophy I took to the watch I built. The dial says 'Submariner', but it has GMT Functions (it's essentially, a sub dial in a GMT case) so 'GMT Submariner' is the most apt description for it (other than POS ) What I'm considering for V2.0, of the above creation, is using the GMTIIC as the base, and jamming in a vintage-style dial, however, I'm debating between using one which is 'vintage colors', or 'new white'. I think that as the GMTIIC is a modern watch, then 'new' dial and hand colors would be more in keeping with the bezel and green GMT hand, although by preference, I think 'vintage colored' dials and hands look nicer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 This watch is an obvious fantasy, so no rules apply. You can customize it however you desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted January 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 This watch is an obvious fantasy, so no rules apply. You can customize it however you desire. Indeed, a fantasy model built by me I was thinking that a set of vintage-colored sword hands would complete the watch, but for V2.0, I was thinking of going with a more 'clean/modern' look, so I was thinking about using a GMTIIC as the base watch. To be honest, I do like the watch I've built, it's just that the lume on the dial isn't anthing special. Out of curiousity, was there a model of Rolex (or Tudor) where both the hands where sword hands? At the moment, all I'm fnding is one where the hour hand is sword-style, but the minute hand is regular... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now