New watch vs. neo-vintage watch and why?
I want to propose to you, dear reader, a luxury watch purchase. Say you're debating between these two options:
Option 1) Brand new watch or watch worn a handful of times whose design you truly like
- Guaranteed water resistance
- More modern features (microadjust clasp, applied indices, warranty coverage)
- Modern Sellita movement
- Costs $1,500
OR
Option 2) Neo-vintage (20 to 30 years old) watch whose design you like even more than option one
- In good condition, but for peace of mind, would require a full service that's roughly 25% of the watch's value
- Less modern "features" (no microadjust clasp, printed indices, out of warranty)
- Serviceable & reliable ETA movement
- Costs $3,000
For the sake of objectivity, I will not say which watches I'm considering. This is similar to the debate of buying a new vs. preowned car. You can choose between a brand-new VW with great features for an attainable price OR buy a pre-owned Mercedes whose design and power you like more BUT comes with higher maintenance and upkeep costs.
Which would you choose and why?
10 comments
Sort by
Jared
Apart from stainless steel sports watches, I'm a huge aerospace fan and have a passion for anything with a jet or rocket engine strapped to it.
Albany
Member since
Last active: 5 min ago
6.50” / 16.51 cm
More from golfping59
I can't vote without knowing design and brands, which are--while not objective--the critical buying factors for me. Objectively speaking, anything newer is better. Less to maintain, better materials, newer technology.
I can't vote without knowing design and brands, which are--while not objective--the critical buying factors for me. Objectively speaking, anything newer is better. Less to maintain, better materials, newer technology.
Totally understand! You could frame it as a brand new Sinn 556 vs an older Tudor Prince Day-Date.
Although those aren’t the watches I have in mind, I think that not mentioning what watches I’m thinking about would help the viewer think more about the facts and the choice itself rather than picking an option purely based on brand bias. Basically “fill in the blank” for watches you may have in mind.
Buying any second hand watch comes with risks. If you budget for it and get it serviced by a reputable watchmaker you'll be fine 🙂
Hard to say. Is it your first luxury watch purchase? I’ve always heard avoiding vintage for a first big purchase is a good idea, however if it’s your true love then go for it. Like the other comment said it is hard to comment without brand or model, but the newer watch being half the price with less potential headache is enticing. HOWEVER it would not be good to settle for the cheaper model when you know you want the other one. If it isn’t clear, I’m saying there’s no right answer 😂
It’s difficult, but I’ve had some unpleasant experiences, and I won’t take the risk/annoyance/disappointment.
At the end of the day it comes down to the watch you want to be looking at on your wrist. And in your story, that's the vintage watch. You buy a good looking example, get it serviced, and it will run as well as the new watch. Yes, it costs a bit more, and maybe you don't have warranty, etc... so what? You're getting the watch you actually want, not the runner up. Why settle for the runner up? That makes no sense. Buy it right the first time.
For reference, my Brosnan-era Omega Seamaster is 25 years old this year. If someone was to buy it, they would have a FABULOUS watch on every level. Don't be afraid of age.
Totally understand! You could frame it as a brand new Sinn 556 vs an older Tudor Prince Day-Date.
Although those aren’t the watches I have in mind, I think that not mentioning what watches I’m thinking about would help the viewer think more about the facts and the choice itself rather than picking an option purely based on brand bias. Basically “fill in the blank” for watches you may have in mind.
If you frame it like this; I'd say Sinn 556, because I don't like the Tudor DD 😄
My main argument against 20-30 year old watches is that they tend to be either designs I don't like or at inflated prices. For example, I wouldn't buy a 2531.80.00 at $3000, because I remember new ones costing less. To me personally, it's not a watch I'd pay $3000, it never was...
The fact that you are considering a watch that costs twice as much despite some drawbacks, makes me think that you like the Neo-vintage watch far better. I'd say go for it.
Imo “neo-vintage” makes more sense for watches that are emulating past design styles rather than for “I don’t want to feel old so I need a special term for it”.
As for choosing between a vintage watch and a current-production model, it’s ultimately about looks for me.
Slightly biased, just bought a 1967 omega geneve, and its without doubt my favourite watch. Imo, a good classic beats a new watch. Its stood the test of time, and just looks stunning ❤️
90’s to early 2000’s is peak watch design to me. Five digit Rolexes, Seamasters, Santos Galbee’s, those Carrera reissues. There was definitely a lot of dogs made in this period, but imo the greatest iterations of some of the greatest designs ever happened in this period
What am I talking about. I guess I’m saying option B