it, be it the steel or the supposed "lifespan"....
When the topic of steel arose on another forum someone suggested that vintage watches most likely didn't use 316 grade steel, they indicated that 304 was more likely if not an even lower grade...as little records were probabily kept and there aren't too many metalurgists willing to test their vintage watches and I doubt manufacturers will offer the info I guess alot is speculation...but my point is that many (unfortunately) use the argument that 904 will resist pitting from sweat better than 316 and use vintage pieces as their example...now if the other guy is right then their points are moot...but who knows, show me a SMP or any other modern watch in 30 to 40 years and we will compare :)
As for the aging I personally think that is BS at best, there is nothing about any current Omega or other watch which would indicate it is only a fifteen year watch, I mean really does that mean other ETA based watches such as IWC, UN, Breitling and what not are also fifteen year watches? and since Rolex won't service after thirty years I fail to see how one of their pieces is somehow an eighty year watch, sounds like garbage to me.