or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 1811  

post #27151 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

What is the healthy amount of time to ignore all your other watches after you get a grail piece? I'm thinking 10-14 days. smile.gif

I've gone much longer ;)

post #27152 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post
 

If the box is correct for that watch, and the owner didn't buy it later and sell the watch with a newer box, I'd guess the watch is from the  late 1980s.  Although they were produced from the early 60s to around 1989.

 

There are lots of Explorer variations (probably the rarest being sold in Japan and instead of saying Explorer on the dial they say Space-Dweller and were only made for a year or two IIRC).  However, the 1016 just seems to be popular.  Its not rare as it was in production from the early 1960s to 1989.  

 

IIRCO in the early 1980s the 1016 had a list price of around $800 and you could buy them all day long with a discount of 25% off MSRP.  They started to go up a bit in value in the 1990s, but I think they really jumped in value after the 14270 Explorer went out of production and there were rumors that the Explorer was going to be discontinued.  Not true, as the 114270 was released, but it seemed there was a bit of a lag between the release end of the 14270's production and the announcement of the 114270's release/production.  During that time values on 14270s also went up significantly (but have since fallen).  

 

In the Explorer's earlier years they were supposed to be more rugged than an average Rolex, and they were also supposed lubricated with oil that would allow the watch to function in either extreme cold or extreme heat.  In addition, a Rolex catalog I have from the 1970s seemed to indicated that 1016 and 1655 were water resistant to 100 meters when all other Rolex watches (except for Subs and SDs) were only water resistant to 50.  

 

The 1016 is a nice piece of Rolex history, but IMHO has never really been worth their current values.  In that range I'd take a vintage Sub or GMT, or a 114270 and still have some money left for another watch.  Just my 2 cents. 

 

Ha...funny Frills.  While an Explorer was involved in climbing Everest, it wasn't a 1016 (hadn't been produced yet).  Also, while an Explorer is the watch in the Bond novels, I'm not sure if he specified a particular model of Explorer or if he just described a Rolex that most believe was an Explorer.  The 1016 is a nice watch, and its probably the vintage Explorer most people think of when you say vintage Explorer, but I don't see the 1016 itself as having lots of historic things associated with it. 

 

See?  Told you Dino would weigh in more comprehensively.

 

What I wanted to say was that all of the associations with the 1016 is necessarily correct or historically accurate - only that such perceived associations may serve to pump up the secondary market price of the piece.  

 

For example, Cleav's post below from Hodinkee associates the 1016 with Edmund Hillary (because he apparently owned one)... 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleav View Post

Frills and. Dino nod[1].gif

Great reading, many thanks for taking the time

I found this info link to an auction, if you're interested, good read in conjunction with your fascinating poast Dino. You're the man

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2010/11/2/sir-edmund-hillarys-watch-collection-a-chance-to-own-the-ori.html

 

... even though this other Hodinkee article clarifies that it wasn't a "Rolex Explorer" that the Everest team likely brought with them to the summit (article from just two weeks ago):

 

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/found-the-rolex-sir-edmund-hillary-wore-to-the-peak-of-mount-everest-live-pics-details

 

In the meantime, you've got pieces like this dating a "Rolex Explorer" to have been manufactured as early as 1950, an entire article with several chapters trying to figure out what Hillary actually brought with him:

 

http://rolexblog.blogspot.com/1998/06/complete-history-of-rolex-conquering_9473.html

 

Even though it's clearly not the 1016 that most people associate with the "Rolex Explorer" look these days.

 

After Dino's note above, I don't know whether to completely write off this joker's piece from a NAWCC publication in mid-2009 about how he found "the original James Bond watch" - which the author claims is a 1016:

 

http://commanderbond.net/9641/how-i-found-the-original-james-bond-watch.html

 

So what's the truth?  Who knows.  What I do think is that correct or not there are stories swirling around about the 1016 out there, maybe explaining its inflated price in the secondary market.

 

Footnote: I myself went for a 114270 so I don't personally place any premium on the 1016, but this ain't the first time that secondary market prices have disagreed with me! :slayer:

post #27153 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleav View Post

Frills and. Dino nod[1].gif

Great reading, many thanks for taking the time

I found this info link to an auction, if you're interested, good read in conjunction with your fascinating poast Dino. You're the man

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2010/11/2/sir-edmund-hillarys-watch-collection-a-chance-to-own-the-ori.html

Thanks Cleav :cheers:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

dino, great info, thanks! ours is from late 60s early 70s iirc.

I was basing my guess on the watch's age using the box in the background of your photos.  If that's the box it arrived in, and the watch is actually from the 1960s or 1970s that's not a period correct box.  That box is consistent with maybe very late 1980s (at the earliest) through the mid 1990s.

post #27154 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

 

 

What I wanted to say was that all of the associations with the 1016 is necessarily correct or historically accurate - only that such perceived associations may serve to pump up the secondary market price of the piece.  

 

So what's the truth?  Who knows.  What I do think is that correct or not there are stories swirling around about the 1016 out there, maybe explaining its inflated price in the secondary market.

 

Footnote: I myself went for a 114270 so I don't personally place any premium on the 1016, but this ain't the first time that secondary market prices have disagreed with me! :slayer:

Yes, I think that when people say Explorer particularly vintage Explorer people think 1016, regardless of whether a 1016 was the Explorer used.  

 

I think these associations do pump up the values, but that's not uncommon in the watch world.  I've seen people selling new Pateks, VCs, and other brands talking about what the vintage pieces are selling for at auction, and then using it to justify the MSRP or why they can give a minimal discount...because this watch could also shoot up in value.  Its entertaining, however, the SAs rarely tell the people that the vintage watches were made in smaller numbers than their modern counterparts and because people wore them and sometimes damaged or lost them, LNIB pieces from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s etc are rare...as people didn't just take a watch and put it in a safe and wait 10-15 years to see what happens (people do that today, so it won't be as tough to get a LNIB modern grand complication VC in say 15 years or so).  

 

Funny thing is when the 1016s were new they didn't seem all that sought after, most people wanted Subs and GMTs, and I think sometimes once values go up...then people all of the sudden become interested in models that previously flew under their radar.  

 

When I bought an Explorer back in 2002, I made the same choice and went for a 114270.  I liked the solid end links of the bracelet and the wg outlines around the hour markers and Arabic numerals.  

post #27155 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

I've gone much longer wink.gif
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
thats what she said


i am sorry, i could not resist


that what she said!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

I was basing my guess on the watch's age using the box in the background of your photos.  If that's the box it arrived in, and the watch is actually from the 1960s or 1970s that's not a period correct box.  That box is consistent with maybe very late 1980s (at the earliest) through the mid 1990s.

that box is storing a run of the mill midsize oyster date from the 90s, was just a prop in the pic, as we dont have the box for the 1016. sorry for the confusion.
post #27156 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
thats what she said


i am sorry, i could not resist


that what she said!
that box is storing a run of the mill midsize oyster date from the 90s, was just a prop in the pic, as we dont have the box for the 1016. sorry for the confusion.

Stitchy, if that's what she said...who am I to complain!  I'm da maaannnn!

 

Ah, thanks for clarifying the box issue.  I thought you were displaying that the watch came with the box and papers that it was delivered in by the prior owner.  I knew that box was wrong, if you were saying the watch was any earlier than the very late 80s.  

post #27157 of 48312
fing02[1].gif
post #27158 of 48312
Here's some SF OCD for you guys. I usually clean our Rolexes with a baby toothbrush (super soft) and dish soap. I haven't noticed any adverse effects in 10+ years. The dealer recommended that I *not* use any sort of brush on the AP as the finish is more delicate. I'm thinking of getting a jewelry steam cleaner for the house, which would be great for my wife's jewelry and also nice for the AP bracelet. Thoughts?
post #27159 of 48312
They are not terribly expensive, and they're kind of cool to have around. But I think that you'll get much more use out of it for jewelry then you will for watch cleaning.

For watches, I find that the best thing that it does is get in between the links and into the lugs to knock out dirt and grime and whatnot.
post #27160 of 48312
TC
10-14 days sounds about right. Then another 14 days or so to find another grail to obsess on!
post #27161 of 48312
post #27162 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

Here's some SF OCD for you guys. I usually clean our Rolexes with a baby toothbrush (super soft) and dish soap. I haven't noticed any adverse effects in 10+ years. The dealer recommended that I *not* use any sort of brush on the AP as the finish is more delicate. I'm thinking of getting a jewelry steam cleaner for the house, which would be great for my wife's jewelry and also nice for the AP bracelet. Thoughts?

The AP seems to have a raw or brushed finish, is I would imagine scratches would accumulate much easier. That said, I think a damp cloth and hot water should do the trick. Of , if possible, take to an AP dealer for the first cleaning and see how they do it.
post #27163 of 48312
Thought I'd contribute - IWC 3777, circa 7 months old.


LV Tambour, circa 7 years old.
post #27164 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

Here's some SF OCD for you guys. I usually clean our Rolexes with a baby toothbrush (super soft) and dish soap. I haven't noticed any adverse effects in 10+ years. The dealer recommended that I *not* use any sort of brush on the AP as the finish is more delicate. I'm thinking of getting a jewelry steam cleaner for the house, which would be great for my wife's jewelry and also nice for the AP bracelet. Thoughts?

I unless you wore a watch in sea water or have sand in it wouldn't use a tooth brush on my Rolexes (or other watches), a friend ruined the finish in the bracelet of an Omega he had years ago using one.  If you get a steam cleaner it might be ok for the bracelet, but I'd keep it away from the head of the watch.  You don't want anything with extreme heat or extreme cold near it.  Quick exposure to extreme heat or cold can result in getting condensation under the crystal (which can spot a dial or cause parts of a movement to rust).  Also, extreme heat from a steamer can over time affect the integrity of the gaskets.  As for cleaning my RO, all I've done is rinse it off first to get rid of loose dirt.  Then use a little of that soap foam (in the pump containers) a diluted with warm running water.  I try not to expose the head of the watch to too much water or too much soap. I gently wipe some of the soap/foam water on the bracelet links using my fingers (making sure I got the front, back, sides and clasp).  Then I rinse it off using warm water.  I have a nice thick microfiber (not the little thin ones for cleaning eyeglasses), and I gently press it against the various surfaces to absorb water.  Then I get a can of compressed air and from about 8 inches away I spray the bracelet links to get any remaining water out (wipe it off with microfiber) and I'm done. 

 

I've been doing that on most watches for years and my RO since I've had it and it look like new.

post #27165 of 48312
^^ +1. I never use any type of brush on my watches. I just use baby shampoo and my hands. I dove with my Sub and a quick rinse and a little soap is all it ever needed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)