[TheTigerUK]

Reading Martins post ref rare and the trade forum in a sellers title, what do we consider "rare".

For example some one who does not own a 6105 could consider that to be a rare model but to guys who own 10 or 20 then it is not rare.

A bracelet end link if you havent got one and can not find one for love nor money could be considered "rare" but then other guys could have a box full.

Again a NOS (what is new old stock ) second hand could be considered rare and again a guy have a tin full so not rare to him but to some one who as looked for one for perhaps years it is rare.

So it goes on we all interpret statements differently.

 

[time]

it is rare if it is hard to come by, hard to purchase, very difficult to find.

It doesn't matter how much someone owns a specific piece, if he isn't selling it, and it meets the above criteria, it is rare.

I think it is pretty self evident

 

[Homocaballus]

I will add another one: ´vintage´ or what to think about ´classic´?!

NOS is clearcut though.
It is new as in the box never used, old as in yesteryears, stock as in trade storage.
It should only be used for unsold, as in never, stóck = retail shelf dweller.
Once it leaves the retail chain, once bought by a private person it ceases to be stock and when unused the name becomes NIB.
Currently the term has eroded to mean just about anything.

Rare = scarce. As Time comments. Pretty selfevident.
The question is hów scarce = rare and thát is flexible.
Like the ´vintage´ Seiko watch stands I received. Rather a common object but not at all that easy to come by. A rarely found common object

 

[Sweephand]

The semantics of watch sales are always 'interesting'. Martin's post hits some nails squarely on the head - and the point about using 'rare' is well made. I think it is ok to describe a piece as 'rare' if it actually is, but of course it's a relative term so people need to be careful with it and certainly not use it routinely. For example, I have recently used the term in a for sale post (watch is now sold) since it was a Seiko 6118, and has been described by others on the (old) forum as rare, or seldom seen, and I have only seen one or two for sale on eBay over the last couple of years so I thought it was reasonable to attract a bit of attention since potential buyers might not know the movement. Ultimately though, I guess users of the SCTF do know their watches, so use of the word 'rare' is probably superfluous anyway! :

Sweephand

 

[Isthmus]

I think that it is worth mentioning that with VERY FEW exceptions, seiko has generally always been a mass market volume manufacturer. For the most part, pieces might be hard to find in some parts of the world, but they are not necessarily rare. The fact that we can still collect so many vintage seikos going back to the 1950's, for affordable prices, and have a reasonable chance to restore them for an affordable price, should speak to the level of "rarity" of most seikos. That said, The same does not apply to specific individual parts, which at times can very easily meet Time's definition of what makes an item rare (think6138-7000 plastic pointer ring, or 5106 quickdate gear).

 

[Axel66]

Rare means, that in most cases it's not worth to hunt it. I want to have a watch collection that shows most facets of the time (in my case mainly '60s and '70s with some exceptions). I want to collect typical middle class watches.
I hate limited editions for example.

However, I have to admit, that there're some "rarer" examples around I would like to have (but for fair money).

But generally speaking, rarity is more a minus for me and my philosophy of collecting watches (unless it's due to a particular technique). ???

Cheers,

Axel

 

[Homocaballus]

I hate limited editions for example.

Those are not necessarily rare. Usually just more collectable because collectors have the perception they are thus they become so thus are less abundant on the market.
There may have been quite a few made. More than of an ´unlimited´ model. Also the collectability ensures that a lot maintain.

Rare does not equal valuable by the way. Collectable does.
Look at the 5717. There were quite a lot made. So many that one can turn up at any car boot sale 40 years later!
There also are several for sale at any given moment. They currently fetch sillymoney because they are collectable and are in that selfgenerating spiral of perceived value.

Look at Rolexes. One million per year are produced. Some models like the subs in the hundreds of thousands annually since the fifties. There are millions of Rolex subs about and they differ in details only. Sometimes just the colour of the printing of two words.
Yet even the most abundant model is worth on average 2 - 3 times what an oysterquartz is worth yet of those were produced 25.000 in total spread over some 25 years.
Collectability is the word.
Rare is.... just scarce.

 

[catflem]

It depends on where the watch or part is being advertised, on ebay most Seiko items appear to be described as rare, even when there are loads of examples listed.

 

[anzac1957]

Something to do with cooking a steak..... )

 

[DeskDiver]

Rare; a poll on this forum that is still open for voting even tho' it hadn't been started when I last looked in a couple of days before.
(If it's closed, while I was thinking about it before actually voting, I'm 50/50 quartz/auto, John, LOL).

On the subject of watches, though, a limited edition may be kept from new as a safe queen by collectors and eventually become more common than the cooking model, due to that version being used and abused and eventually becoming rarer....

 

[sharkfinDave]

This is RARE!

I find that "rare" is overly used especially on ebay and in sales forums. Way too much IMO.
Its become a sellers tool to market an item. I believe it should be used accordingly in the right circumstances if items warrant it.
Me, I like mine medium rare, but on the rare side. ;-)


Dave.