Help with picking a vintage watch!

[Miss Golightly]

Hello everyone!

I hope you're all well! My husband's 40th birthday is approaching and I was having a good think about what to get him and I was thinking of getting him a vintage watch - perhaps one from the 1950's. I got him a D&G watch some years ago and he doesn't wear it - in fairness the watch face is the size of Big Ben and he doesn't find it comfortable to wear - I figured a vintage watch would be slimmer - and ultimately an elegant gift. I've looked through many and I'm trying to decide between these two - are any of your familiar with these brands - do you favour one or the other? I think they are both very handsome....

Any thoughts would be very welcome - thank you!

 

[Cochese]

I like the first, with the second hand in it's own section. But then again I'm a huge chronograph fan.

 

[Miss Golightly]

Thanks Cochese - I agree with you about the first one - I think I lean more towards that one myself!

 

[skyvue]

I too prefer the first one. If your husband likes to go with a vintage look, I think it's definitely your best best. If he doesn't, the second one is less obviously vintage, to my eyes, and that may be a good thing for him.

 

[Edward]

Of the two I think I jut prefer the first, though I couldn't say why exactly. I love the simple, unfussy style of both. I can't be doing with excessive extra dials and buttons. I even dislike date-windows (although, unlike more than one button / knob they aren't a deal breaker), but it's so hard to find a decent watch without one these days.

 

[esteban68]

both decent makers I have an Olma somewhere from roughly the same period possibly a little earlier, the Olma looks the nicest but looks to be chrome plated, the Cyma appears to be a full stainless case which will last longer, also the Olma appears to have luminous hands and markers if pre 55 it's possible it could be radioactive mildly so but still worth knowing....personally I'd go with the Cyma but hey thats just me or an nice old Omega 50's/60's Seamaster in a full stainless case which you could pick up for around the £200-300 range.

 

[de Stokesay]

I think both are nice but my preference would be for the first one. I'm a bit of a sucker for a seconds sub-dial though.

One thing to keep in mind with either of these is that although they both say they are waterproof, neither of them really is. In the 1950s, you didn't really have to make a very waterproof watch at all in order to put "waterproof" on the dial. Also, even if it wasn't too leaky when new, keep in mind that the 1950s were a looooong time ago and any seals that were in them originally likely aren't up to much anymore. That said, this isn't really a problem as I wear a 1937 Hamilton everyday that never even pretended to water-tight when new. You just need to be aware that this is the situation and take it off when doing things like swimming or washing dishes.

Also keep in mind that before 1960 watches were much smaller than now and men's watches from this period can have a tendency to look like ladies watches to the modern eye. From my point of view, this is fine because even though I have small girly wrists I am quite comfortable in my masculinity.

One thing you might try is to ask him which he prefers. I know this spoils the surprise but this is somewhat moot if he won't wear either of them.

Good luck with your decision.

de Stokesay

 

[Miss Golightly]

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions - it's much appreciated!

Skyvue - great point about the second one being less vintage looking - my husband is not into vintage attire so that could suit him better - he may get more wear out of it (I still like the face on the first one myself though!).

Edward - I'm with you on fussy faces on watches - too many dials just ruins the watch in my opinion! I've seen some very expensive watches with so much going on on the face it's hard to tell the time! I have a calendar on my watch but apart from that it's as plain as can be.

Esteban68 - Some very valid points there - thank you! I didn't take into consideration the luminous hands - I got a horrible feeling when I read your post! The seller said that there is a small amount of Tritium on the hands that is only harmful when eaten (I can't see my husband ever being that hungry!) so I think it would be safe enough - however, once you have read items talking mentioning cancer and tumours in the same sentence as painted watch hands you have to have a rethink! The fact that the second watch is stainless steel would swing things in its favour - it would be a lot hardier. I think my husband would prefer the look of the second watch anyway - I think it has a more modern look to it.

de Stokesay - Thank you also for your input! Good point about the size of the watch face - I like that old watches (for ladies or gents) had smaller faces - like I said the D&G watch he has is ridiculously big - you could put it on a wall and use it as a clock - far too bulky (plus he says it digs into his wrist). I would ask him which he prefers but this probably going to be his main surprise - he's already told me one thing that he wants so I'd like for one thing to be completely unexpected.

Just one more thing.....

Regarding the Tritium would you ladies or gents have any problems wearing a watch with painted hands? Would you wear it every day or only for special occasions? Would you be concerned if the glass got broken - would you throw the watch out?

Again, thank you!

 

[Cochese]

Regarding the Tritium would you ladies or gents have any problems wearing a watch with painted hands? Would you wear it every day or only for special occasions? Would you be concerned if the glass got broken - would you throw the watch out?

Again, thank you!

It would not concern me too much. It's only harmful if directly absorbed or ingested, and even then poses a very small health risk. You will not absorb any by simply wearing the watch.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060908...adiation/Forms/nuclide_data_safety_sheets.pdf

 

[Miss Golightly]

Thanks for the information Cochese!

In the end I decided to go with the Cyma - I felt it had a slightly more modern feel to it & as my husband isn't that into vintage hopefully he'll wear it!

Thank you all again for your valuable advice!

 

[esteban68]

good choice, a buff up with a jeweiiers cloth will be all it needs to keep it shiney and you can use it on the glass, if it seems a little small on his wrist you could fit it with a nice tan/brown 'bund' strap(military style) they were very popular BITD, they come in 16 or 18mm widths and it will be one or the other.

 

[Talbot]

Nice choice. Both beautiful pieces. I like the sub seconds of the Olma, but the hands on the Cyma really appeal to me.

I hope he enjoys such a thoughful gift.