Pictures from DavidSW? Same watch?

[Syed117]

Just throwing this out there. Hopefully a mod can take a look.

Pictures in this AD looked exactly the way David takes them.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=565772

Pictures are actually from the same model that David had (or has) for sale:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...ghlight=126334

Again, might be the same watch that ended up with someone new.

[77T]

If you look closely you’ll see he lifted the pic from DSW.
Note how he tried to blur his watermark.

Here is a close-up of the ad’s pic you posted...

[Syed117]

Originally Posted by 77T

If you look closely you’ll see the AD lifted the pic from DSW.
Note how they tried to blur his watermark. So who is the AD?

Sorry for the confusion, I meant AD as in advertisement, not authorized dealer.

The non David watch listed on the forums

[77T]

Originally Posted by Syed117

Sorry for the confusion, I meant AD as in advertisement, not authorized dealer.

The non David watch listed on the forums

OK and fixed my post...

[Naples09]

Maybe David gave him permission to use the original pics.

David hasn't bumped that thread for over a month.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by Naples09

Maybe David gave him permission to use the original pics.

David hasn't bumped that thread for over a month.

This is not allowed. When selling a watch, pictures have to be the current condition of the watch. Hope this is not the case, and I highly doubt David would give anyone permission to use his photos.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

This is not allowed. When selling a watch, pictures have to be the current condition of the watch. Hope this is not the case, and I highly doubt David would give anyone permission to use his photos.

DavidSW listed these photos only a month ago. If the watch remained unworn I don't see why using these same photos, with permission, would necessarily constitute any policy violation. The issue you have raised is current condition; timing of the photos is irrelevant.

I can't comment whether or not one seller would allow another to use their photos, but I personally wouldn't have any objection.

Notwithstanding the above, it does appear to have been a scam.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by Tony64

DavidSW listed these photos only a month ago. If the watch remained unworn I don't see why using these same photos, with permission, would necessarily constitute any policy violation. The issue you have raised is current condition; timing of the photos is irrelevant.

I can't comment whether or not one seller would allow another to use their photos, but I personally wouldn't have any objection.

Notwithstanding the above, it does appear to have been a scam.

Doesn't matter, it isn't the current condition and for that fact they aren't his photos. Ask a mod, what they think.....

[tommy91]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

Doesn't matter, it isn't the current condition and for that fact they aren't his photos. Ask a mod, what they think.....

I agree with you, even if bought and not worn and they are listing straight away you still have to list current photos. Something may of happened in transit. I doubt David SW knows the picture is being used?

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

Doesn't matter, it isn't the current condition and for that fact they aren't his photos. Ask a mod, what they think.....

Interesting that you knew that, I haven't seen the watch and would have had no way of knowing that it wasn't the current condition. Thanks for the clarification.

As I said, it seems to have been a scam, so doesn't really matter I suppose.

Perhaps a Mod could clarify though, since you've raised the issue, whether a recent photo can be used with permission of the original seller if the photo represents an accurate representation of the watch being offered.

[jrs146]

Not sure if it’s a forum rule to use original pics but I think if you’re going to use another sellers pics you should previously had permission and state that in the ad. Too many scammers out there not to be completely upfront about pics. I think an explanation from the seller is warranted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[socalwatchcollector]

Originally Posted by jrs146

Not sure if it’s a forum rule to use original pics but I think if you’re going to use another sellers pics you should previously had permission and state that in the ad. Too many scammers out there not to be completely upfront about pics. I think an explanation from the seller is warranted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1 as a buyer who utilizes the sellers on here frequently this would cause confusion IMO. Not a fan..

[CaveDweller]

The seller claims "pictures are of actual watch" - so either he's bought it from David and taking a hit - (strange that David didn't mark it as sold) - or there's something going on that we are not being told ......

[MonBK]

Has anyone alerted the seller or David?

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by MonBK

Has anyone alerted the seller or David?

Yes, David

[cht]

ad is gone...

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by cht

ad is gone...

Must have been taken down by a mod.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by MonBK

Must have been taken down by a mod.

Yes all problems have been settled satisfactory and for clarity you cannot use anyone elses pictures even with permission or not in a for-sale add.Picture must be taken by the seller at point of adding watch for sale on forum this rule must be obeyed.