It's not often I get to recycle portions of previous posts twice in sucessive days on two different forums, but this has happened. Yesterday a poster asked a similar question on the Watch-U-Seek Omega forum, here is my response:
Chicagoland Chuck Maddox
Posts: The ethics of customization/modification... Mythoughts...
Quote: Originally Posted by marker
Anyone who customises a Speedmaster should bethrown to the dogs.
Long time members of the Omega community will know/remember that I've agonized about the ethics of modifying vintage watches.
The conclusion I've come to is that as long as the "donor" watch in question isNOT:
- historically significant (an Astronaut worn/ownedwatch), or
- a model or Case Ref. that was historically significant (CK2915 or 105.003, etc.), or
- limited production ('80's Ti Moonphase) or numbered edition (G-4 40th or A-11 35th, etc.),or
- in extremely short supply (like a 105.002 or376.0822 "Grail").
... then it was tolerable to "customize" a watch. Also, easily "reversible" customizations (like displayback conversions) are acceptable as well.
Under this thinking most (if not all) c.321's wouldn't be suitable, but most 1970's moonwatches would, the Mark II (which has pretty good availablilty, etc.) would, the Grail wouldn't but the 176.012 (which still is easy toobtain) would. etc.
Of course if a watch is a "basket-case", or a franken to begin with, then one could choose to restore it as onesees fit.
Of course there are caveats to customization... One should be honest and open about any modifications to the watch, and state them clearly if selling the watch. No fraudulent claims of "rare special edition" or "previously unknown model" when selling the watch, etc. One should be truthful and ethical in any transactions,etc.
At this point, I haven't personally completed a custom watch, but I have a pile of parts that I hope eventually to reconstitute into a result similar to what Steve Waddington has posted.
So I'll say "Cool! as long as thedonor watch in question was chosen with care/respect (as delineated above), and also described/ presented as whatit is accurately. Heresy! if donewith a "significant watch" (again as delineated above) ormisrepresented.".
-- Chuck
P.S. I'm open to other ideas though, at least listening to them...
Oh course a historicalloy significant Heuer may be one worn by Jo Siffert, Steve McQueen or Niki Lauda. But most of us are knowledgeable enough to transpose the Omega references to their Heuer requivelent.
My thoughts with these guidelines is to preserve as many historically significant, rare and unusual original examples from doing shorsighted things with them, and/or creating "instant frankenwatches". As always the best modifications (if modifications must be made) are those which are easily reversible.
As before I am open to other ideas though, at least listening to them.
