I won’t say ‘why you shouldn’t collect vintage Rolex watches’, because this post just reflects my opinion on collecting vintage Rolex watches. I am a huge fan of Rolex watches and have my share of them. My collection also includes a vintage ref.1600 Rolex Date-Just dating 1969 featuring a beautiful pie-pan’ish dial. A few years a go (+/- 2003), if you had 2500 Euro to spend, you could either choose a slightly used GMT-Master (II) or a vintage ref.1675 GMT-Master in good condition. Including the original box, if you were lucky. In the same period, you could have your vintage Submariner for a few hundreds extra.
ref.1665 Rolex Sea-Dweller. Picture by OysterInfo.de.
Since then, Rolex forums, portals and fan sites have been popping up like mushrooms, and boosted the vintage Rolex market. Even vintage Rolex watches in bad (or even worse) condition do not stay with the seller for a long time. Prices went up like crazy. A vintage ref.1675 in a so-so condition would easily fetch 4000 Euro. A vintage red printed Submariner? 8000 Euro. A ref.1665 Sea-Dweller from the late 1970s? 15.000 Euro! And I left out the double red printing on the last one, add another 10.000 Euro for the Sea-Dwellers with the red lettering.
That’s how the market works I guess. And if you like vintage Rolex watches and have the money for it, buy now and don’t wait another 5 years. New Rolex watches also see their annual price increases, but not with the percentages of vintage ones.
The reason why I do not collect vintage Rolex watches is not that I don’t like them. I really do like the domed crystals, non-glossy dials and yellowed tritium hands and hour markers. The main reason is that I don’t think they are worth the extra money over a modern Rolex watch. Take Omega’s Speedmaster Professional for example, the vintage models with movement caliber 321 and the applied metal Omega logo from the 1960s is about as expensive as a brand new Speedmaster Professional model. Perhaps even a bit more expensive if the vintage watch is in very good condition. The vintage Speedmaster (pre-)Professional is crafted more nicely than the new ones, with the column wheel chronograph movement and the dial with the nice applied metal logo. Except for the bracelet, you could say that the old watch is even better in terms of used materials and movement. So get one while you can, before these watches get as hyped as the vintage Rolex models. Which I actually doubt that will happen, because Rolex is still the brand for the masses. Even if you aren’t a watch freak or adept and can spare some money, a vintage Rolex is the way to go.
Undoubted, a modern Rolex watch is better than a vintage Rolex watch, in terms of quality of used materials and because of the movement. As for beauty, it’s a different issue. As I wrote before, I like the vintage Rolex watches, but the hype made the fun go away. A number of people seem to buy them to be able to show off to other vintage collectors, not for their own pleasure. It also occurred to me that most of the current vintage buyers are mostly focused on the optical aspects of a Rolex and do not care for its condition of the mechanical movement. That’s like buying an old-timer with a perfect paint job without popping the hood.
Vintage Rolex watches in a good condition are expensive due to the demand, but asking (or paying!) crazy prices for watches in such a condition that the buyer should be lucky that it runs at all, is insane.
I would be only interested in buying a vintage Rolex watch when it was in superb condition. Optical as well as technical, otherwise it is just an old watch to me. However, instead of paying 15.000 Euro for a vintage ref. 1665 Rolex Sea-Dweller, it also brings me – for example – an Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Jumbo ref.15200ST that is a few years old AND a brand new Rolex Sea-Dweller. Or, the summum of watch making, a Patek Philippe. In other words, if I would be in the market to spend 15.000 Euro on a wrist watch, it surely wouldn’t be a vintage Rolex.
March 11, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
Excellent article Robert-Jan and i couldn’t agree more. It’s like art… some ‘names’ become collectable and prices go skyhigh. Unfortunately this makes these watches unreachable for the true watch lover who admires a watch like this for ALL of it’s aspects, incluing what’s under the hood.
And i agree with you… if i had 15k€ to spent on watches… it wouldn’t be just one vintage Rolex 1665…. although i love mine
Cheers,
Frank
March 20, 2008 at 1:31 am |
[...] Euro for a vintage ref. 1665 Rolex Sea-Dweller, it also brings me for example … source: Why I dont collect vintage Rolex watches, [...]
April 27, 2008 at 2:05 am |
Have an old rolex probably from the thirties still runs, I have pictures, serial numbers, model number, if your interested send me your email and I’ll show you.
May 28, 2008 at 9:40 pm |
Hello. I have just acquired my grandfather’s gold oyster perpetual Rolex. I love it, and am BY NO MEANS any sort of watch expert, but as you all look like you might be! It was bought by my grandmother for him in the early 60s (my mom remembers the purchase of it new from a reputable Jewelry store back then.) The watch doesn’t seem to have any markings on the back of it. It is gold (my mom is a jeweler and tested it) -so maybe they have been worn down, but I’m not sure. Is this normal with an older watch like that? Is there anything else I should look for?
Thanks! Aimee
May 29, 2008 at 7:06 am |
@Aimee:
There are only a few Rolex watches with markings on the caseback. The Oyster Perpetuals of the 1960s do not have any marking on the caseback. You might find the serialnumber between the lugs of the case. However, you have to remove the strap or bracelet for this first. Have this done by a watchmaker for you.
The only Rolex with markings on the caseback is the Rolex Sea-Dweller sports watch in stainless steel.
Best regards,
Robert-Jan
September 27, 2008 at 10:55 pm |
Stumbled across a ladies cocktail Rolex, probably made around 1936 if I’m understanding the serial # lookup correctly. I really know very little about watches although I love them, particularly vintage. Guy wants $1000 for it. Serial # 83856 14k. I guess it’s real although I’ve noticed ladies Rolex’s tend to be 18k that I’ve seen just browsing the internet. If anyone could help me out. Is this a fair price, bargain, or just plain silly?
September 27, 2008 at 11:21 pm |
Mike Bubick I’d like to see the watch you are referring to. If you tell me you found it pinned behind some window curtains it’s a small world. Your watch is the one I’m curious about.
December 22, 2008 at 2:11 am |
I came across your blog while researching Rolexes. I know nothing about watches but am looking to buy an older Rolex from the 60s-70s period. One watch caught my attention today at a store – it’s a 1970’s stainless steel oyster precision with date. The salesman came down from $2,600 to $2,000 f after I pressed him a little, but I am still wondering if I am overpaying. One of the things that drew me to the watch was the dial but also the black leather band, which I find to be much more elegant and classy than the metal rolex band. I’m not a big fan of the Rolex band. However, I’ve noticed how much those bands sell for online – as much as $800 -and it occurred to me that this is where the retailers make their margin. Perhaps they buy the watch in full but then sell the band separately from the dial and wait for a person like me to buy the rolex with a much less expensive leather band because I like the way it looks. Am I on to something here?