A Prodigal team member trades in his entire watch collection for two vintage Subs and a Swatch: Admirable or insane?
By The Prodigal Fool, published on 14 October 2009
Well, that’s exactly what Straight-Six, one of The Prodigal Guide’s contributors, did last weekend. What we want to know is: was it admirable or insane?
If you ignore the rather fetching white-faced Daytona in the foreground (that belongs to another lucky Prodigal Guide blogger) the photo above lays out his previous collection:
- Rolex Cosmograph Daytona, black dial (2004): This was his ‘bling’ watch, his acknowledgement of the Daytona myth, his credentials for any serious watch collector’s club.
- Rolex Explorer II (2007): A fantastic ‘any circumstance’ watch, looks great with jeans and a T-shirt, a three piece bespoke suit, and everything in between. Going away for a three week holiday? This is the puppy you strap to your wrist, confident that it will handle anything you throw at it.
- Rolex Explorer (2006): The more refined companion piece to the Explorer II, could potentially be worn on a strap or – in extremis – loaned to his wife.
- Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Geographic, black dial (2002): Elegant dress watch from a well-admired watchmaker. The ‘special occasion’ watch.
- Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Control (2004): Again, a companion piece of sorts. Offered all the sophistication of the Master Geographic in a more subdued package.
An impressive collection by any measure and one built-up over a period of more than five years.
So, what was it that convinced him to sell every single one of these in a single transaction? What could have tempted and consumed him so completely?
Well, here’s his new collection:
- Rolex Oysterquartz Datejust 17000 (circa 1985): all original boxes (inner+outer) and all paperwork. Immaculate condition, having just been serviced and polished.
- Rolex Submariner 6536/1 (circa 1956-57): original dial, (all) hands and bezel with red triangle and original luminescent dot at 12 o’clock; original riveted bracelet; superb and even patina on all-gilt dial.
- Rolex Sea-Dweller 1665 (1980): the very last year of production of the SD 2000; gorgeous even eggshell patina on the hour markers and hands; features the Maxi Dial only found in the 1980 Sea-Dwellers; unique aging of bezel insert to a soft grey; original bracelet.
The Submariner and the Sea-Dweller are just too similar both in looks and ‘purpose’. They’re too old and too precious to be used day to day in the way you would a modern Sub and they couldn’t be trusted for such duties as hanging by the pool or dressed up for formal wear.
The Oysterquartz is far more practical but – despite its good looks and rarity – it’s a quartz. You know, like a Swatch. Yes, yes, we know all about how precise and well-engineered that infamous Rolex quartz movement is but, at the end of the day, don’t we love and collect watches because of the craftsmanship and skill that goes into mechanical movements? Isn’t a quartz, no matter how rare or precisely-engineered, a rung below? And another thing: even though it’s now the youngest watch in the collection, is still 25 years old itself. It will look good in certain circumstances but doesn’t have the ‘go anywhere’ appeal of a modern Rolex sports watch
The variety has disappeared from the collection. All Rolex, all sports models. Where’s the fun in that?
In the next few days, Straight-Six will post his reasoning but, in the meantime, what’s your take on this move? A clever piece of trading-up or has our man squandered the hard work he’d put into his previous collection?
UPDATED – 18 October 2009: Straight-Six has just posted his explanation.
A Prodigal team member trades in his entire watch collection for two vintage Subs and a Swatch: Admirable or insane?
Would you ever consider trading in a diverse collection of practical and yet classic watches for just three vintage pieces that, although eminently desirable, are both too valuable and too similar to offer so much as one ‘daily wearer’ amongst them? Well, that’s exactly what Straight-Six, one of The Prodigal Guide’s contributors, did last weekend. [...]
This section is supported by the patronage of:
15 Responses to “A Prodigal team member trades in his entire watch collection for two vintage Subs and a Swatch: Admirable or insane?”
-
I have to agree 100% with the article. Although you picked up 3 show stopping watches, you have eliminated all variety in your collection. At least you’ll have a much better starting point to begin your new collection.
-
Thanks for the comment The Haute Spot. I guess it comes down to what you value more in a watch collection: ‘collectability’ or variety. I love having a well balanced selection of watches to wear. Anyway, I spoke to Straight-Six earlier, he’s going to be posing his ‘explanation’ for this move in the next day or so. I look forward to reading it.
-
You and I are cut from the same cloth in that regard. I love having a watch for every occasion, which is why I value variety more.
Straight-Six’s original collection seemed to cover everything from formal affairs to poker night with the guys, while his new collection, well covers less. I will be looking forward to the explanation soon. Either way, great article.
Also, kudos to whoever owns that white faced Daytona? My mouth is dropped just looking at it.
-
So, Straight-Six just posted his explanation. It doesn’t sway me but you can’t argue with the man’s love of watches! Click on ‘Aged and proud of it’ in the list of recent post to the right to read it and let us know what you think.
-
-
-
-
Huib
17 October 2009
I disagree with the article. For me its a no-brainer. Although I can appreciate the reasoning of the article’s writer, I would prefer the vintage watches anytime and I would wear them,too. I also think that there is a certain merit in limiting own’s collection to one brand only. On the whole I would applaud Straight-six for his (bold?) trade-in.
-
He’ll be pleased to hear that! I must admit, having seen the piece he picked up, I can’t help being a little envious. They are truly stunning.
Some more photos in Staight-Six’s post of today if you’re interested…
-
-
Flanker
18 October 2009
I think I understand exactly what Straight Six tried to do when replacing his entire collection.
At some stage in time, it’s no longer fun to accumulate watches for the sake of accumulation, so he “consolidated” it into a few pieces he really liked.
I could totally live with his choice of watches:
- the 6536/1 is rather small (37-38mm if I remember correctly), and if you put it on a nice croc strap, could serve as a dress watch. It’s beautifully understated.
- the 1665 has a spectacular presence on the wrist, a great sports watch. And properly serviced, I would not have any issue going in the pool with it. I have a 1680 from 1978 that I have regularly serviced, and I have no second thoughts swimming with it. I wouldn’t do it with the 6536/1 because Rolex has stopped servicing it a long time ago (and it’s almost impossible to find spare parts), but no issue at all with a 5513 / 1680 / 1665
- the Oysterquartz is a little bit more controversial… but it is extremely convenient and versatile. This watch too, you can wear with jeans or a suit. It’s tough, accurate, and has the same level of finish you’d expect on a Rolex. He chose it with a silver dial to add a bit of variety, so it’s fairly complementary with the rest of his collection
Besides, if he wants a true sports watch to use as a beater, he can always get a Seiko Divers 200 which is fantastic value for money at just a few hundred $. No need to have a Rolex / Omega for this purpose. Bad comes to worse, one could go to the gym with the Oysterquartz
Personally, I’m up to 8 high-end watches in my collection, and I think it’s a least 3 or 4 too many. I will let go of at least 3 of them to finance a Patek , and then I think I’ll have all bases covered. At the end of the day, I only have one left wrist…
-
Flanker, you make an excellent point in terms of the number of watches one should have in their collection. As you say, you only have one wrist.
So, how many is the right amount?
I think we may have to start a whole new discussion just around that.
In the meantime, thanks for the comments – interesting to hear your perspective.
In case you’re interested, Straight-Six just posted his explanation. You’ll find it listed in recent posts under ‘Aged and proud of it’
-
Straight-Six
18 October 2009
Flanker,
We understand one another completely. I was genuinely tired of modern watch “accumulation”, and was clearly suffering from fatigue, and perhaps boredom.
These vintage babies are on a different plane altogether: uncommon, aged, so much more distinguished and – clearly – demand a lot more knowledge and caution on behalf of the buyer. That sounded like a challenge well worth taking on to me!
Love your idea of a croco strap with the 6536/1 and had already intended to explore this further.
Lastly, the observations about beater watches are intriguing to me, as I never, ever use or consider any of the watches I have owned as a beater. Truth is I take my watches off when doing anything remotely physical i.e. working out, swimming, etc. Christ, I even remove them when I tan on the beach!
Yes, I’m funny like that…:)
-
-
Aged and proud of it « The Prodigal Guide
18 October 2009
[...] Submariner by Straight-Six What follows is a response to a post we published a few days ago, asking whether it could ever make sense to trade in a diverse collection of practical watches for ju…. Here, Straight-Six, the man who did exactly that, explains why he [...]
-
Flanker
19 October 2009
To Prodigal Fool:
I don’t think there’s a “one size fits all” in terms of number of watches in a collection. It depends very much if you have an emotional attachment with a specific watch, then it becomes very difficult (sometimes impossible) to let it go.
In my particular case, in reality, I will find it very hard to get down to less than 5-6 watches. The reason for this is a number of them are vintage models that I love, and are hard to find in a good condition. Letting go of them while knowing they will be difficult to replace if ever I regret them is very much a deal breaker for me. I have, however, no qualms in letting go of a modern watch that I can easily find in the market. Case in point: I’d sell my IWC 3717 chronograph without any second thoughts, but will probably never sell my IWC 3705, a rare chronograph in ceramic that was produced only in small quantities in the mid 90′s. Likewise, I’d much rather sell my Rolex Daytona than my military Tudor Submariner 94010 Marine Nationale.
To Straight Six:
I hear you: vintage watches are a totally different ball game, and yes, you have to be knowledgeable and exert a great deal of caution. And in case of doubt, always “buy the seller”, ie prefer a reputable dealer even if it costs you more.
As for the ‘beaters’, I am in general very careful of my watches, so I never had any issue wearing a sports watch while practising, well, sports… I used to have an Explorer II that I regularly took to the gym, and it never skipped a beat, nor did it get dinged / scratched. Obviously, I would not subject a high end mechanical watch to an extreme activity (e.g. rafting), but for gentle activities such as running, swimming, working out (as long as you’re careful with the weights), no issue.
I even used to bring my vintage Rolex models to the gym, but I have stopped as I am conscious that these will become increasingly difficult to service. The day is not far when Rolex refuses to service all their acrylic crystal vintage models. So these days, I use a Seiko MarineMaster 300 for sports. A fantastic dive watch equiped with a Grand Seiko Movement and a quality that is on par with Omega (at the very least).
-
A Prodigal October « The Prodigal Guide
1 November 2009
[...] number 2 – A Prodigal team member trades in his entire watch collection for two vintage Subs and a Swatch: Admi… – In which our man, Straight-Six, exchanges his diverse watch collection for just three [...]
-
[...] world of vintage with gusto, trading in his entire watch collection for just a couple of old Subs. We questioned his sanity. He retorted and has been waxing lyrical about vintage ever [...]
-
That was awesome i wish i could collect a set of Rolex in the future. Owning a Rolex is like the ultimate status symbol, for rolex watches come at a very steep price, usually outside the income levels of many people. Rolexes come with an air of extravagance and class that very few luxuries offer. Purchasing a Rolex is like buying a piece of history. Rolex watches are always in high demand.
Speedmaster
14 October 2009
Wow!!