Watch Condition

[retrowrist]

Hello,

Sorry if this has been discussed many times, but I did search here at the forum for a accurate history of a watch condition scale, and couldn't find it..

I have noticed that some eBay sellers state thing like: 9/10, Excellent, Mint and the like, but it really varies.

The below link shows a watch in what is described as "Excellent" condition. Is this watch truly in excellent condition?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... K:MEWAX:IT

I realize that photography has a lot to do with the accurate depiction of a watch for sale, but would a watch from 1975 with the case banged-up to a point that it looks like a hockey puck be rated as "Excellent? (Not the watch I in the eBay sale I put into this thread)"

I would like to know if anyone here has such a reference scale from which we can reference, and rate with reasonable accuracy. If such a scale does not exist, then ok.

Anyway, thank you all in advance.

- RetroWrist

[Huertecilla]

Hello,

Sorry if this has been discussed many times, but I did search here at the forum for a accurate history of a watch condition scale, and couldn't find it..

The timezone scale is as ´hard´ as it gets.
You will need good fotos to judge wether the seller is probably accurate or not.

http://www.timezone.com/library/tzguide ... 2192343750

[retrowrist]

Good reference material. Thank you.

- RetroWrist

[bruce wegmann]

If you're going to spend any amount of time (or money) on eBay, the first rule about any auction is...the pictures! It's the only way you have of gauging whether the seller has what they're claiming to have. I always want to see clear, bright, close-up pics of the front, back, and sides. A correlary to this is...the more expensive the item is, the better those pics need to be! If they're not there, I ask the seller to provide some, sometimes with special attention to specific details. If the seller won't provide them, I almost always pass, and wait for something better to come along. Sellers occasionally post bad pics of pricey items, so if you really are sure of what you're seeing, it's possible to pick up a bargain. One other thing about eBay; if you are patient, and wait long enough, virtually anything will eventually show up. In the meantime, save your money, so when the prize item does surface, you'll be able to make a serious run for it. I typically wait until the final seconds (having decided already how high I am willing to go) put in the number, and hit the "confirm" button. If you're the high bid, there's no time for anyone to react and outbid you (I have actually won auctions with zero time left on the clock!), and if you're not, at least you took your best shot...in the wild world of eBay, you can't do better than that.

[rewolf]

IMVHO all these reference scales are useless for ebay because a) they are subjective and b) you can't rely on the seller applying them correctly. That might work with a serious trustworthy professionall seller, but not on ebay.
As Bruce wrote: the only way is good pictures and then rate for yourself.

[retrowrist]

Thank you for the imput

Bruce Wegmann and Rewolf...

I tend to believe the same about the photos on anything of value being sold on eBay, but there are sellers on eBay that will insist with me about the good accuracy of their pictures, when I ask about their item, such as a Watch, Game boy system or Boom box. Especially "Retro" items that have some wear and age behind them and they will tell the interested buyer, "Look at the pictures I posted, can't you tell the condition?!" And my answer has to be "No, I cannot!"

I have also seen sellers that sell VERY!!! expensive watches on eBay (around $600.00 - $700.00 a POP) and take the photos for the auction with a $19.00 cell phone camera! In my opinion, this should not happen, but maybe I am a big crybaby wanting to actually see what it is I am buying.

I have bought some things on eBay that look very close to the pictures that were displayed about them, but like you said Bruce, sometimes it is a guessing game.

I bought a watch the other day that was in fair condition, but only after I cleaned it for 2 hours. So there is a trade-off of sorts sometimes. But some people here may argue that they should never have to clean or service a listed watch stated as "All functions working!" as long as the pictures in the listing show the watch as close to "Mint" condition as it can be, but dirt hides in all nooks and crannies of a watch's bracelet and case.

So all this consideration lead me to asking you guys here at "DWF.NU."

Thank you all.

- RetroWrist

[rewolf]

... but there are sellers on eBay that will insist with me about the good accuracy of their pictures, when I ask about their item, such as a Watch, Game boy system or Boom box. Especially "Retro" items that have some wear and age behind them and they will tell the interested buyer, "Look at the pictures I posted, can't you tell the condition?!" And my answer has to be "No, I cannot!"...

Yep, and is exactly this sort of sellers where you can't rely on any condition scale they use, but have to resort to photos and judge for yourself.

BTW: for me it's part of the fun to clean and restore a used item

[retrowrist]

BTW: for me it's part of the fun to clean and restore a used item

For me as well. 2 weeks ago, I bought a watch that stated that the condition was a "9" on a 1-10 scale. It turned out to be the Jewler's opinion, and not the seller's. Anyway, I cleaned it, and if I sell it tomorrow, I am taking good MACRO shots of it with a Sigma Macro lens, with my 20D DSLR, nice and clear like, in-studio conditions, and I will state that the watch is in only FAIR condition. That is really all to it.

Anyway, Thank you people.

- RetroWrist

[bruce wegmann]

The whole issue of condition and grading has so many subtle variables operating that it is almost impossible, except at the very upper limits of condition, to get two people to absolutely agree. The coin collectors solved this a long time ago by establishing companies with panels of numismatic experts to give accurate, impartial opinions of the condition of specimens submitted for examination (NGC and PCGS have been doing this for many years now). The specimen is examined, graded on a 70-point scale, and then sealed in an airtight, registered, serial-numbered plastic case (this is called "slabbing" a coin, and once done, it becomes a permanent part of an all-encompassing database, called the "condition census"). This is especially important with very rare or valuable pieces, where a single grading point can double, triple, even increase 10-fold a specimens' value. It is a shame that a similar service is not available to watch collectors, along with a record of the existance of specific specimens; a model and serial registry (and, the objects of our hobby do have the additional advantage of already being serial-numbered!).

[Huertecilla]

and restore a used item

In metal objects that presents a challenge.
´Removing´ scratches per example is only possible by fílling it. Not by removing the surrounding surface as that will alter shape/dimensions.

Same thing oxidised surfaces.
In archeology ´restoring´ is largely not done anymore. In Europe at least. Particularly in the US óverrestoring has not been eradicated.

In watches it is not such an issue was with a 2500 y.o. iron sword but it is all too easy to ´polish´ away the sharp edges the manufacturer painstainkingly created.
Most times the shape and surface can be maintained without loss of identity but sometimes the original skill simply cannot be replicated.
I have three GrandSeikos for sale at present that were made to the Seiko ´Grammar of Design´ and which are untouched. Even though they have very little ´sabi´ most western wis prefer a shiney one with unavoidably ruined edges and ´mono plane´.
In the case of these vintage GS models a large part of the price was in that sharp mono plane shaping by hand. It is impossible to ´restore´.

Rant over

[rewolf]

and restore a used item

In metal objects that presents a challenge.
´Removing´ scratches per example is only possible by fílling it. Not by removing the surrounding surface as that will alter shape/dimensions.

I've never gone further than polishing a crystal: I fully agree that it's important to keep the original surface structure, shape and edges.

[bruce wegmann]

I think the range of what can be accomplished are limited not by the material, but by the skill of the restorer. After 22 years of job-shop and tool-and-die work, I tend to look at a watch as a piece of metalwork, be it stainless steel, sterling silver, or solid gold. With the right tools, enough time, and a steady hand, near-miracles can be accomplished. The last few years, I was routinely working to tolerances much closer than the original case makers, so from my perspective, they were actually relaxed, rather than tightened. Ed has seen a good example of my work on an 18K Pulsar (definitely not a project for the inexperienced or faint-of-heart!...Ed, you can post the pics up here if you want). The best restorations don't look like restorations at all... I would maintain that if done properly, it in no way diminishes the value of the watch (and of course, done poorly, can result in serious, devaluing damage).

[Huertecilla]

I would maintain that if done properly, it in no way diminishes the value of the watch (and of course, done poorly, can result in serious, devaluing damage).

The crux being the level of skill that went into the original product.

´Done properly´ needs replicate that.

Done properly original shape and dimensions still cánnot be restored by removing metal. It is inherantly impossible.

´Restored´ should imo nót be used but be called refinished. But then I am an amateur archeologist European

I maintain that an original in good nick should always fetch a premium over an however well refinished example.
Refinished is a wide area between almost new original and damaged to the point of unpresentable.

[retroleds]

In metal objects that presents a challenge.
´Removing´ scratches per example is only possible by fílling it. Not by removing the surrounding surface as that will alter shape/dimensions.
:

Like Bruce, I have a tool & die background - I was a form grinder. Same situation - much tighter tolerances were being held, routinely. I believe on some watches you can [theoretically] remove some metal AND not dramatically alter the shape or dimernsions - tolerances are tolerances, any pieces originally machined to the high limit could certainly be taken down toward the low limit. Problem is most people don't have the tools, setup or skills to do the work. I have everything necessary - surface grinder, radius dresser with extension to dress up to 15" radii, Harig Grind-All http://www.harigmfg.com/grindall1g.html, surface plate, gauge blocks. gauge pins, and two large cabinets full of v-block, vises, planers gauges,etc(mine and late father's, also toolmaker). But it is hard to justify spending several hours setting up one piece so you can get the correct radii, correct angles,etc. And you need to make a holder to hold the piece very securely to even start on THAT, and to perform the work. No point in running a decent case under a grinding wheel and flinging it into the wall(exposing yourself and the equipment to danger also.)

Bruce does nice work on his rebrushing, a lot of us do nice brushing(particularly depending on mood, steadiness of hands, etc. ). But none of us can recreate the original factory finish on most of the pieces because we are not grinding the surface in one smooth pass, as was obviously done at the factory.

Back to the tolerances. With glass/crystals we see a lot of variance on the thickness, seems to be .010-.015(.25-.38mm) on Pulsar glass. And the faceting seems to vary quite a bit too. A piece of PUlsar glass with minor scratches and some edge roughness can often be taken down a little on the face(making facet smaller too), then facet increased a small amount to bring back to size. Roughness gone, scratch gone, still totally within tolerances.