What you see here is a 1920s (I wanna say 1926 but I could be mistaken, this could a model from a later year, maybe 1928) Rolex Oyster. It has a “3-piece cushion case” and is 32mm. Supposedly it’s the one of the first, if not the first “waterproof” watch.
I have an opportunity to own it. My vintage girl is asking for waaaay too much money for it but not in the realm of the impossible. I’m… percolating.
Don’t worry, I’m not here to ask you if I should pull the trigger or not. I’ll make that decision. I’m just here to walk you through my process and see if anyone else can relate. This will also confirm what many of you probably already know, that there is no method to the madness.
Anyway, here are some of the problems I’m trying to solve in my head:
It’s a Rolex, which is a brand I don’t necessarily have an affinity for. I like that it’s one of the first wrist watches with Rolex on the dial. I already bought one of the first watches with Seiko on the dial so I’m in familiar territory. But while the Seiko is an instant buy given its relatively low cost, this one will need a bit more thinking.
I like my 1924 Seiko. It’s great. I love the history, the heritage, the earthquake story behind it. I don’t like it because it’s a Seiko though. I like it in spite of the Seiko brand. If I get the Rolex, it will also be in spite of the brand.
She also offered me a 1950s (possibly) Omega Seamaster Cosmic Triple Date Moonphase for relatively the same cost as the 1920s Rolex. I’m admittedly an Omega fanboy. I’ve always wanted a Moonphase. This is also an extremely desirable vintage gem, if I’m being honest.
However, I don’t know that it eclipses the 1920s Rolex. (Hah! Get it? Moonphase, eclipse? Moon? Hello? Where did you all go?)
In any other scenario, I would choose Omega in a heartbeat. Aqua Terra versus Oyster Perpetual? Aqua Terra wins all day long. Seamaster Professional versus Submariner? Get out of here. SMP for the win. Speedmaster versus Daytona? Speedmaster, of course.
But, in this specific situation and only this situation, Rolex is the winner I’m afraid. Am I crazy? Probably. Fine fine, let’s just call me crazy. I’ll own it.
While I appreciate vintage watches and even though I love their supposed historical significance, I do recognize that these values are just constructs, ultimately having no meaning. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Oh, your watch was made a hundred years ago. So what? Why is that important? Most old things are really just that, old. Which is not to say that specs mean anything either.
For me, specs are the least interesting aspects of a watch. It’s like movies, the story comes first, the artistry next, then there’s the cinematography and the acting, how the plot moves forward, how scenes tie together, etc. Only when the intangibles are considered and talked about to death do I delve into the “specs”–what’s the run time? How much did it cost to make the movie? How are the special effects done? 3-D or IMAX? Both? And all that other stuff.
So, in terms of watches, I could care less if it’s COSC-certified, made of unobtainium, able to tell time in three timezones, and hands forged in the fires of Mount Doom. In other words, who cares if the Omega has more complications? Who cares about moonphases, ultimately? I know I don’t.
If I were to choose between Meryl Streep and Farrah Fawcett, I will give Meryl Streep all the credit in the world. She is gorgeous and has more talent in her little pinky than Farrah Fawcett had in her entire body. Meryl Streep can make me laugh and make me cry. But Farrah Fawcett made me horny. In this specific situation and only in this specific situation, Rolex trumps Omega.
The value of a watch is in the eye of the beholder and any reason to love it is no more reasonable than even the most facetious reason. So I like vintage. That doesn’t mean my reason is any deeper than, say, wanting a watch because it’s in a color you like. It’s all arbitrary.
So, while Rolex isn’t the best brand as far as I’m concerned and while I would never spend money on a modern Oyster Perpetual, this 1920s Rolex gets me rock hard.
I love quoting this now:
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
It just says it all. It allows for inconsistencies and forgives confusing messages.
I want the watch and really considering it. The price is the sticking point. It’s just too much money for a third-worlder like me. I’m trying to convince the dealer to do a partial trade with my 1959 Rolex Oysterdate. It won’t cover the entire cost but will help ease the pain.
The dealer–because we already have a relationship–is considering it. She said she’ll get back to me. It’s really good to form a relationship with a vintage watch dealer you can trust when you’re down the rabbit hole. I don’t have to rush into anything. She will give me the courtesy of letting me know if there’s another potential buyer. In the past, I’ve committed to a watch that took months before I got around to getting. As long as I commit to a watch, it’s a done deal. I don’t need to give her a reservation or holding fee, she just takes me at my word. And in exchange I never rescind a commitment.
Well, that’s not entirely true. I have from time to time backed out of fait accompli deals. However, I usually only do so when a bigger ticket item comes into play. She doesn’t mind me replacing one commitment with another. What’s important is that I don’t back out of a commitment to buy a watch completely. For instance, I committed to getting an automatic TAG Heuer Carrera Caliber 5, which I went back a week after because she showed me a Longines I would much rather get. And once I have the watch and money exchanged hands, I don’t send it back unless something is wrong with it. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Or as her partner would call it, co-dependency.
All of this to say I don’t have to rush into any kind of decision. I can really think about it. Ah, who am I kidding? I’m getting the Rolex, aren’t I?
The Escapement Room 