Hey, I bought a bar over crown Hamilton...

[railman]

Paid way too much but happy to get it. On ebay they seem to go real fast. With this new addition I'm averaging $275 a watch for railroad approved. What the heck, you only go around once. Now I'm up to 5 watches! Most are minty. Only my Howard Series 5 has a hairline...

[railman]

Paid way too much but happy to get it. On ebay they seem to go real fast. With this new addition I'm averaging $275 a watch for railroad approved. What the heck, you only go around once. Now I'm up to 5 watches! Most are minty. Only my Howard Series 5 has a hairline...

[Greg Davis]

"Minty"... what does that word mean? Shall we engage in another semantic discussion? Nah... probably best not to do so.

- Greg

[Kent]

I think that "minty" means that its not actually mint, but that people are being led to believe that it is.

After all, if it was actually in "mint" condition, why not just say so.

Kent :smile:

[Greg Davis]

I was going to guess that it might have recently been serviced by having mint oil used as a refreshing lubricant.

[Barry G]

I thought "minty" referred to the nice green patina on the brassed out case...

:wink:

Barry

------------------
My Online Pocket Watch Collection (http://barrygoldberg.net/watches.htm)

[Greg Davis]

Good point, Barry. I never thought of the Crayola Connection. :smile:

[xylo]

Say guys, why don't we discuss the words and phrases that a REAL afficianado of watch collecting should NEVER use to reveal their lack of horological education.

I'm sure Railman and other newbies, including myself would appreciate knowing from you experts how to best describe the condition of our recent and proud acquisitions.

I have never used the word MINT in any of my descriptions, but I have used NEAR-MINT a number of times to describe watches that, since coming to this message board I have learned were really only just above
average.

Thanks, and keep enlightening us beginners.

[Tom McIntyre]

I think the problem we all have with words to describe the general condition, or words (or stars) to describe rarity or desirability is that they don't really do the job.

You can describe the movement, case and dial of a watch in about 25 or 30 words pretty accurately and include the originality as well as the condition. i.e. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the damaskeening is very bright except for 3 small spots of corrosion on the winding wheels and a light scratch from a screwdriver slip near one of the jewel settings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would call a watch with that description "very good" in my personal grading system.

Any watch that I would grade below "good" would have to also be "very scarce" to be collectible. For me it would also have to be very high original quality since that is what I collect. For others scarcity by itself is good enough to trump condition.

I personally do not care as much about originality as do some others who contribute here. I do care very much about authenticity by which I mean historically accurate restorations are acceptable if fully documented and disclosed.

------------------
Tom McIntyre
Past President, NAWCC Chapters 174 and 87
Member Chapters 8, 87, 149, and 174
Pocket Horology Web (http://www.pocketwatch.org)
Tommy the JOAT's Web (http://www.AWCo.org)

[xylo]

Ah, but there's the rub!

I have several 83's with similar minor faults as those you have mentioned in your post, but I would never have described them to anyone as "Very Good". I keep them because I like them for their total beauty and for how they feel in my hand.

From your concise and erudite comment, it seems that the prudent approach is to not use words such as "Mint", "Excellent","Very Good", "Fine", etcetura, and simply describe the faults as best one can and not praise the good qualities.

Of course, this is the reverse of generally accepted good marketing, on eBay and everywhere else.

"To praise or not to praise, that is the question.?"

[Greg Davis]

My personal bias against use of descriptions like "mint" or "minty" is that they say absolutely nothing. It's a lazy shorthand that fails to convey any useful information.

The description entered by Tom is a good example of one that describes a watch with useful detail. "Minty" describes someone's breath after they have a Tic Tac.

- Greg

[railman]

Okay, okay. To me a watch is mint if it comes in it's original box wrapped in the original papers and has never been taken out of the box. Right from the factory. "Minty" to me means the luster is still there. No scratchs, marks, hairlines, chips, etc. Looks like it just came out of the box. I know most of you guys consider a watch of that caliber as maybe excellent. As someone said earlier, this an arguement of semantics. I'm new to pockets after a 15 year hiatus. I've, over the years, collected guns, coins and other objects. It always seems collectors butt heads over the supposed condition of the item. Yeah, I'm a newbie after all these years. However, I know what I like.

[Kent]

A well-known mail-order watch dealer in Sarasota, Fl. uses descriptive terms such as mint, near mint, very fine, average, excellent, & etc.

The system has worked well for many, many years because each list starts out with the definitions of each of the terms. Personally I don't agree with the use of Excellent to describe a case that is showing brass. But that's the stated definition and there's no doubt in my mind about what the actual condition is.

Its too much to expect that the dealers can be made to follow standardized definitions, but it would be easy for internet dealers to define their own terms and have them available, either as boiler-plate, or as a link to the definitions, in each listing.

Kent :smile:

[Greg Davis]

With a coin you really only have one dimension to concern yourself about ... surface condition. Thus, having a one-word shorthand to describe the condition is somewhat meaningful.

Not so with watches. If all we cared about was how they look on the outside, such descriptions would have meaning and value. Since we also care about the functionality of the piece and the condition of the parts inside, those one word descriptions are worse than worthless... they are misleading.

But what really bothers me is that people use the terms "Mint" and "Minty" in an effort to impress rather than in an effort to inform. I, for one, would be far more impressed by a nice picture of the watch than I would by someone telling me it's condition in a single-word description, no matter how many standard definitions are available for that single-word. A picture is worth a thousand words... a single word is hardly worth a pixel. :smile:

- Greg

[Greg Davis]

I found a local dealer who has quite a few RR-grade Hamiltons (and Illinois Bunn Specials including one in a solid gold hunter case, and Walthams including an Up-Down model). One of them is a bar-over-crown.

I looked it over pretty hard and it seems to be all genuine... with the possible exception of the dial. As I mentioned, he had several Hamiltons, four of which had the same large Arabic number dial design... but the one on the B-o-C had slightly "fatter" numbers (i.e. the inner space was smaller and less "crisp" than on the other three). Other than that, everything looked good. Elinvar hair spring, 23J movement, the usual markings, nice overall look and it worked reliably. And the price was reasonable too... well, reasonable by RR watch standards, at any rate... which is to say more than I tend to enjoy paying.

If the dial hadn't struck me as weird I would have bought it. Alas, it did so I didn't.

- Greg

[Dave Haynes]

Those coin and stamp folks are really sick people, but that's definitely where the money is. The words to describe condition are totally up to the person who's grading based on their experience. If they have no point of reference (a perfect watch), their idea of mint may be perfectly honest and totally wrong. I never believe anything until I actually see and handle the watch.

[terry hall]

23J eh.... you were looking at a 950. There are some variation in boldness of the dials.

re: minty..... b.s.
there is one example on right now that is described as a mint case. It has a replacement bow!!! There are two sets of case screw marks!!! GEEZE...

[lots of time]

I dont buy many watches on the internet, and those that I do, I take the description with a grain of salt. If I want it and the price is right, I buy it.
I suppose my collection is somewhat different than most in that it doesnt really matter to me if there is a bit of brass showing or if a dial has a hairline as long as its priced accordingly. My railway watch collection consists of (so far) of a few very nice examples and a few that most of you wouldnt have in the house. A lot of the watches I have were obviously used for many years in the field and some of them show it.
For my purpose, it doesnt matter that much because my collection is sort of a running history of the railroad watch as used in Canada and they dont have to be perfect. I have no intentions of ever selling any of them anyway.
I buy what I consider to be excellent examples of "working" railroaders watches at a very good price, because most collectors that are seeking "flawless examples" wouldnt touch them.
I love old watches and they dont have to be perfect for me to love them.

[Barry G]

lots of time: Don't worry -- you're not alone! If you are thinking of collecting watches as investments, the three most important considerations are condition, condition, and condition. Not all collectors, however, care about the investment potential of their watches.

Of the 60 some odd watches I own, the majority are in what most collectors would consider "average" condition, with a few in "fine" condition and maybe one or two in "near mint". I also have some unusual or rare watches that, frankly, aren't in particularly good condition at all [cracks on the dial, brass on the case, spots on the movement, etc.] Now, if I wanted to, I'm sure I could trade in my whole collection for maybe 9 or 10 really sharp, absolutely mint condition watches. But then I'd only have 9 or 10 watches!

I collect watches because I'm fascinated by the history behind them [which is, incidentally, why I don't collect wristwatches or later pocket watches from the 1950's and up]. Sure, it would be nice if all my watches were in mint condition, but I'd rather have a flawed 24j Bunn Special in a hunter case or a flawed "Dennison Howard & Davis" than none at all. And yes, it would be wonderful if all my watches were appreciating dramatically in value every year, but since I don't have any plans to sell my collection it's really just not that important to me.

There's nothing wrong with buying watches as investments, of course, and I know there are plenty of collectors to whom investment potential is but one of many factors and not necessarily the primary consideration. But there are also people like you and me who mostly just want to get interesting watches at prices we can afford.

Regards,

Barry

------------------
My Online Pocket Watch Collection (http://barrygoldberg.net/watches.htm)

[Greg Davis]

Personally, I'm with Lots-o-time on this one... but then, I'm a confirmed bottom feeder (most of the time).

Some people take pleasure from building collections of the best and the brightest (I do, when I can afford it), and some take pleasure from breathing life back in the less bright (I do). And some of us take particular pleasure in snagging something relatively rare for bargain prices (that's me too).

I don't fault anyone for the way they collect or what facet of the collecting habit interests them the most. How can I? I'm all over the map on this thing!

I do get amused when people make the assumption that the reason they collect is the ONLY reason to collect, and that the way they collect is the ONLY right way to collect.

Sure, condition is important... if you particularly care about condition. It's a little less important if you are primarily interested in learning history or how to repair things. I would not buy a pristine railroad watch in order to learn the fine are of cleaning watches... I'd do that on a lesser piece. Then if I leave an errant screwdriver scratch I won't get bawled out by a bunch of nin-nins who think I have destroyed some piece of horological history. :smile: And when I get around to cleaning that pristine railroad watch I won't be as inclined to ruin it.

Alas, we occasionally lose focus on the fact that being a bottom feeder (such as myself) is no less honorable than being a fat cat feeding on the cream. If it weren't for people like me, all the parts watches you guys need would end up in lucite cubes. :biggrin:

- Greg