Getting back to the question.
The reason of this topic spawn is a try to understand, why a lot of people are not restore their totally used watches.
They have enough comfort to wear them as is. Right from the eBay package.
I am really don't understand.
I personally feel uncomfortable if I wear such timepiece with worn out crowns, yellow scratched and cracked plastic, torn belts and beaten case like an old dime.
If i will put a watch on my wrist I feel the strict obligation to make them good looking engineering item.
Here we come to the "before and after" theme, but if you have to explain, that you wear the "after" version, who need this kind of "after"?
Last edited by Bandido; 1 Day Ago at 20:35.
Take a look here. https://forums.watchuseek.com/#/topics/4974749
Some watches are used past their prime
My view is one of visual delight and human history. I really like patina and I love to see how (in this case) a watch has taken on a visual persona that is unique - something a perfect new watch is not. I suppose a lot of my pleasure is related to my growing up with just about nothing but art and artistic industry around me. An impressionist painting, for example, generally is very far from "perfect". In fact it is the nature of all the imperfections (style?) that makes the painting stand out. Whether something is done on purpose or not is of no consequence to me.
That said, I certainly don't like to see something that has been abused or badly damaged. Years of wear and natural processes of the materials are what I love to see. You would never see me with something popular and perfect. Give me a special Seiko, and I'd be embarrassed to wear it, but would still appreciate what it is and its value to others - so I'd just give it away or trade it for a well worn old Pobeda whose look and history I can appreciate.
This could easily turn into a book, but I truly scratch my head over the overwhelming interest in "new" and fashionable items. I've always eschewed the common, but perhaps what I'm seeing is a psychology where people actually want to be like others (and feel like they belong) through cultivation of some commonality. I suppose that's human nature, but when it comes to art I cannot stomach such an approach and will always go my own way.
I think (and this is only my presumption) a lot of people of the watch forum would like to have theis watch in a nearly new condition because of one simple reason.
Not because of that so-called herd instinct to have everything new.
Yes the watch is very often a piece of art, but I can not align the watch and the artwork.
The artwork does not toed to anything. It can be (and currently it is) a banana sticked to the wall. Or painted ceiling of the cathedral, or everything you want. You only need to think about good performance about it nowadays. The old art masters had to make it hard to reproduce several hundred years ago.
About watch it does not play (for me, at least).
For me personally the watch is a tool. First of all. All that history, tradition, art, complications and so on are based on this engineering platform, that watch is a tool. This is a machine for measuring time as precise as it possible. As any tool it should be at maximum best condition as it is possible for the tool.
That is why for me the nearly new condition of the watch is the best and the target.
Right after that we have individuality, history, memories, colours, materials, patina, etc)))).
By the way, right now Vostok 1967 Bronze-2 on my wrist. With all that patina)))).
But. Is wearing a bronze with some patina, which was prescribed initially, is it the same as wearing a vintage brass watch with traces of chrome? Nope).
Last edited by Bandido; 13 Hours Ago at 08:54.
Last edited by Jake_P; 4 Hours Ago at 17:58. Reason: Poor readability!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)