I've been reading with a lot of interest over the last year I've been collecting Heuer's, about 'patina' and also the ongoing debate of mint/nos. My confusion is about the differences between them. Not the obvious difference of course, but the difference between the collectors view on which is best/nicest/most desirable. A lot of messages have been posted which congratulate owners on their new purchase of a mint example of say, a Monaco. I completely understand this. (I don't fully get the whole "NOS examples kept in a safe", but it's still early days of my journey into collecting). On the flip side though, there seems to be equal congratulations over an example that is aged, or has 'patina'. When does a dial that is a nice, aged, patina'd example just become a 'tatty dial'?? There have been a few posts recently about Monaco and Silverstone 'paintless wonders', which although look very distinctive, and I'm sure are very collectable due to their very early issue dates and their un-tried and tested paint techniques, in the cold light of day, are defective. I'm not saying I wouldn't have one though...

Can anyone share their thoughts on this to help put me out of my misery???

David H