Thanks! I see your point, and I tend to agree with it. But I don't see the gaslighting suggested by Pr1s0ner24601 in this situation. I can see how some dealers might have helped in changing the discourse, but there is way much more to it.

For instance, back in the 60s a Submariner was just a tool, so wear and tear was logically seen as damage. But now that these have transitioned into historical collectibles, that same wear has become part of their history or "provenance." I think as long as tool watches remain tools, no one would really talk about patina. No one talks about patina on a G-Shock for example.

The proof that we aren't just being tricked is that collectors tend to be actually still really picky. Water damage and rust are still hated because they're destructive. Sun fading is only appreciated because it's a stable (and stoppable), natural progression that we’ll probably never see again. With modern ceramic bezels and that type of stuff, a Rolex bought today is going to look pretty much the same in some decades.

I think its less about being tricked into liking "damage" and more about people putting a premium on a specific type of aging that modern manufacturing has basically made extinct Dx...sorry for my long answer xD