Birth Year watches 1953
Discussion
Shame 'cus the Rolex Submariner (& therefore all Rolex Submariners ever produced) is a 1953 design. But you're going to need another zero for that.
Hamilton Ventura is a '57 watch. And a decent one would be about 3 times your budget.
In your price range, (if you're really lucky) you should be looking at something like an Omega bumper .
Jaeger Le Coultre released the Powermatic in 1948. I don't know when production ceased. As you can see a decent one can be had close to your budget, and its a really really nice watch.
As is the JLC Futurematic Produced from 1951. Really, really, really nice.
But them I have a thing for these old JLCs.
It might be difficult knowing that you have a watch actually made in 1953, as opposed to buying a watch that you know was in production in 1953 (but could have been made a few years either side.) Bulova are great for this as the cases are marked with a year letter.
Some others things that you should know:
Old watches are smaller than modern ones. Some people think vintage stuff looks girly compared to the Big Ben sized dinner plates that they are used to lugging around on their arms.
When buying vintage budget £100 ish for a service (ask Variomatic for a quote) and buying outside of the EU budget 20% for import duty.
Ask here, (or by PM if you like) before spending that much on a second hand vintage piece. We can look at the pictures and tell you for certain that it's a bad watch, but we may not be able to tell you that it's a good one.
Hamilton Ventura is a '57 watch. And a decent one would be about 3 times your budget.
In your price range, (if you're really lucky) you should be looking at something like an Omega bumper .
Jaeger Le Coultre released the Powermatic in 1948. I don't know when production ceased. As you can see a decent one can be had close to your budget, and its a really really nice watch.
As is the JLC Futurematic Produced from 1951. Really, really, really nice.
But them I have a thing for these old JLCs.
It might be difficult knowing that you have a watch actually made in 1953, as opposed to buying a watch that you know was in production in 1953 (but could have been made a few years either side.) Bulova are great for this as the cases are marked with a year letter.
Some others things that you should know:
Old watches are smaller than modern ones. Some people think vintage stuff looks girly compared to the Big Ben sized dinner plates that they are used to lugging around on their arms.
When buying vintage budget £100 ish for a service (ask Variomatic for a quote) and buying outside of the EU budget 20% for import duty.
Ask here, (or by PM if you like) before spending that much on a second hand vintage piece. We can look at the pictures and tell you for certain that it's a bad watch, but we may not be able to tell you that it's a good one.
Trustmeimadoctor said:
any advice at all?
Yes. Don't buy him a birth year watch.You see, any watch you buy within your budget will have had 62 years worth of wear and probably look like it. Now, the recipient MIGHT like that, but he might alternatively think how knackered it looks and it will remind him that he's getting on a bit.
Yes, there will be some little used and good quality examples out there. But your budget is a limiting factor.
Personally I'd be looking at new.
13m said:
Yes. Don't buy him a birth year watch.
You see, any watch you buy within your budget will have had 62 years worth of wear and probably look like it. Now, the recipient MIGHT like that, but he might alternatively think how knackered it looks and it will remind him that he's getting on a bit.
Yes, there will be some little used and good quality examples out there. But your budget is a limiting factor.
Personally I'd be looking at new.
Saying "I'd be looking new" in response to a request for a 1953 birth year watch is like suggesting a Bugatti Veyron to someone asking about a penny farthing! You see, any watch you buy within your budget will have had 62 years worth of wear and probably look like it. Now, the recipient MIGHT like that, but he might alternatively think how knackered it looks and it will remind him that he's getting on a bit.
Yes, there will be some little used and good quality examples out there. But your budget is a limiting factor.
Personally I'd be looking at new.
Something from Omega or Longines would be my suggestion, but it depends, to a degree, on the recipients taste - nearly all watches that age will be under 36mm (perhaps not great for ageing eyes?)
M.
Edited by marcosgt on Wednesday 17th August 13:27
marcosgt said:
13m said:
Yes. Don't buy him a birth year watch.
You see, any watch you buy within your budget will have had 62 years worth of wear and probably look like it. Now, the recipient MIGHT like that, but he might alternatively think how knackered it looks and it will remind him that he's getting on a bit.
Yes, there will be some little used and good quality examples out there. But your budget is a limiting factor.
Personally I'd be looking at new.
Saying "I'd be looking new" in response to a request for a 1953 birth year watch is like suggesting a Bugatti Veyron to someone asking about a penny farthing! You see, any watch you buy within your budget will have had 62 years worth of wear and probably look like it. Now, the recipient MIGHT like that, but he might alternatively think how knackered it looks and it will remind him that he's getting on a bit.
Yes, there will be some little used and good quality examples out there. But your budget is a limiting factor.
Personally I'd be looking at new.
Something from Omega or Longines would be my suggestion, but it depends, to a degree, on the recipients taste - nearly all watches that age will be under 36mm (perhaps not great for ageing eyes?)
M.
Edited by marcosgt on Wednesday 17th August 13:27
OP, there are plenty of perfectly good, near mint condition 1953 watches out there that are in the ball park of your budget. Unrestored and going strong.
That said there are also a lot of watches with " patina" (looks knackered in a pleasing way) and a lot of watches that have been professionally restored (dial repainted with a wallpaper paste brush, movment cobbled together from several broken watches, not necessarily of the same brand or even calibre).
Buying in this age bracket you can never guarantee that you won't buy a lemon. But with help you can avoid the worst watches and hopefully be guided to the better ones.
13m is partly right, don't try this without help, but there are plenty of decent ones out there.
That said there are also a lot of watches with " patina" (looks knackered in a pleasing way) and a lot of watches that have been professionally restored (dial repainted with a wallpaper paste brush, movment cobbled together from several broken watches, not necessarily of the same brand or even calibre).
Buying in this age bracket you can never guarantee that you won't buy a lemon. But with help you can avoid the worst watches and hopefully be guided to the better ones.
13m is partly right, don't try this without help, but there are plenty of decent ones out there.
marcosgt said:
13m said:
Probably more like advising someone who wants to buy a penny farthing as a gift that the recipient might prefer a more modern bicycle.
Probably, but it appears the watch is less important here than the date! 
M
A brand new watch, engraved maybe, with a birth date newspaper (probably still available cheaply) would, I think, be better received. Though of course I don't know the recipient - he might like knackered old watches for all I know.
An aside: A lad I know is 30 and looking for a Rolex Datejust in stainless from his birth year. Our local AD had one within a year or so and it had just been serviced by Rolex. It looked tired. It reminded me how long 30 years is in the life of even a quality watch. So a watch of the quality that the OP can afford, twice as old, is likely to be very tired.
Trustmeimadoctor said:
The wifes omega cocktail watch that my gran gave her still looks good and thats older than my father. I do get your point though!
That will be, I imagine, because your wife doesn't go to cocktail parties every day and it sits boxed in a drawer for 364 days a year.I imagine you have in mind a more everyday watch for your Dad, which will have seen a lot more wear and tear.
13m said:
Which is, in my opinion, not a good plan with a gift. I cannot think that anyone would be pleased to received a knackered old watch just because it happened to be made the year he / she was born.
A brand new watch, engraved maybe, with a birth date newspaper (probably still available cheaply) would, I think, be better received. Though of course I don't know the recipient - he might like knackered old watches for all I know.
An aside: A lad I know is 30 and looking for a Rolex Datejust in stainless from his birth year. Our local AD had one within a year or so and it had just been serviced by Rolex. It looked tired. It reminded me how long 30 years is in the life of even a quality watch. So a watch of the quality that the OP can afford, twice as old, is likely to be very tired.
And everyone has different views.A brand new watch, engraved maybe, with a birth date newspaper (probably still available cheaply) would, I think, be better received. Though of course I don't know the recipient - he might like knackered old watches for all I know.
An aside: A lad I know is 30 and looking for a Rolex Datejust in stainless from his birth year. Our local AD had one within a year or so and it had just been serviced by Rolex. It looked tired. It reminded me how long 30 years is in the life of even a quality watch. So a watch of the quality that the OP can afford, twice as old, is likely to be very tired.
Your new engraved watch and newspaper MAY appeal to some, but it sounds horrible to me!A bit Franklin Mint!
I've got a couple of watches older than me and I love 'em for having been ticking all that time.
A new watch is just something you went to the shop for, like a pint of milk, shows no care or attention.
A well chosen birth year watch, for some, will be worth far more than its monetary value alone.
If all you want is a reliable timepiece then you might as well go down Carphone Warehouse
Obviously such a thing isn't for everyone, but I presume someone's already identified that the recipient is likely to receive a watch in a positive manner.
This is a 1962 watch (ok, a little newer than the OP's looking for)
Cost me £170, keeps great time.
If the OP's not obsessed with brands, there's plenty of well kept, quality watches out there to choice from.
A decent Seamaster, like that above, could be in reach if the OP avoids the likes of Austin Kaye.
M
Edited by marcosgt on Wednesday 17th August 19:50
marcosgt said:
And everyone has different views.
Your new engraved watch and newspaper MAY appeal to some, but it sounds horrible to me!A bit Franklin Mint!
I've got a couple of watches older than me and I love 'em for having been ticking all that time.
A new watch is just something you went to the shop for, like a pint of milk, shows no care or attention.
A well chosen birth year watch, for some, will be worth far more than its monetary value alone.
If all you want is a reliable timepiece then you might as well go down Carphone Warehouse
Obviously such a thing isn't for everyone, but I presume someone's already identified that the recipient is likely to receive a watch in a positive manner.
This is a 1962 watch (ok, a little newer than the OP's looking for)
Cost me £170, keeps great time.
If the OP's not obsessed with brands, there's plenty of well kept, quality watches out there to choice from.
A decent Seamaster, like that above, could be in reach if the OP avoids the likes of Austin Kaye.
M
You are absolutely correct, it does depend upon the recipient. Your new engraved watch and newspaper MAY appeal to some, but it sounds horrible to me!A bit Franklin Mint!
I've got a couple of watches older than me and I love 'em for having been ticking all that time.
A new watch is just something you went to the shop for, like a pint of milk, shows no care or attention.
A well chosen birth year watch, for some, will be worth far more than its monetary value alone.
If all you want is a reliable timepiece then you might as well go down Carphone Warehouse
Obviously such a thing isn't for everyone, but I presume someone's already identified that the recipient is likely to receive a watch in a positive manner.
This is a 1962 watch (ok, a little newer than the OP's looking for)
Cost me £170, keeps great time.
If the OP's not obsessed with brands, there's plenty of well kept, quality watches out there to choice from.
A decent Seamaster, like that above, could be in reach if the OP avoids the likes of Austin Kaye.
M
Edited by marcosgt on Wednesday 17th August 19:50
I think really I was cautioning against the notion that everyone thinks a birth year watch is cool. To some it is an apt and considered gift, to others it's just a knackered old watch. Though, I think the higher quality and value the watch the more a profane recipient would "get it".
Couple of 1953 watches here that won't break the bank
http://www.birthyearwatches.com/1953-2/
or try and find a long service gold watch with an inscription that dates it to 1953. That's a little more obvious as a gift, even if the watch was made a year or two before, rather than referring your lucky dad to a chart of serial numbers
http://www.birthyearwatches.com/1953-2/
or try and find a long service gold watch with an inscription that dates it to 1953. That's a little more obvious as a gift, even if the watch was made a year or two before, rather than referring your lucky dad to a chart of serial numbers
scott-1vt9j said:
Couple of 1953 watches here that won't break the bank
http://www.birthyearwatches.com/1953-2/
or try and find a long service gold watch with an inscription that dates it to 1953. That's a little more obvious as a gift, even if the watch was made a year or two before, rather than referring your lucky dad to a chart of serial numbers
You mean a watch given to someone else for long service at a firm? I am personally okay with birth date watches, but I would be heinously pissed off if someone bought me a "Barry Smith 50 years HOVIS" watch.http://www.birthyearwatches.com/1953-2/
or try and find a long service gold watch with an inscription that dates it to 1953. That's a little more obvious as a gift, even if the watch was made a year or two before, rather than referring your lucky dad to a chart of serial numbers
13m said:
You mean a watch given to someone else for long service at a firm? I am personally okay with birth date watches, but I would be heinously pissed off if someone bought me a "Barry Smith 50 years HOVIS" watch.
Me too. The only way that would be acceptable would be if Bazzer were a relative or close friend. Otherwise the gold watch would be sent to Eddie to have the engraving removed.I really don't agree though that a 63 year old watch would be regarded as knackered. Take your time and choose carefully and you could get something that looks really special for the OPs budget.
13m said:
Trustmeimadoctor said:
any advice at all?
Yes. Don't buy him a birth year watch.You see, any watch you buy within your budget will have had 62 years worth of wear and probably look like it. Now, the recipient MIGHT like that, but he might alternatively think how knackered it looks and it will remind him that he's getting on a bit.
Yes, there will be some little used and good quality examples out there. But your budget is a limiting factor.
Personally I'd be looking at new.
http://www.vintagewineandport.co.uk/products/Chate...
Then your dad will be double happy
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff