Paul Thorpe

[Xtralarg]

This guy is very knowledgeable, well worth watching his videos.

Watch "Paul Thorpe Watch Dealer" on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoQ...juAa14y5PhqXIA

[R G]

Some of his content is really low-grade. Other bits, moderately useful.

[timedate]

Originally Posted by R G

Some of his content is really low-grade. Other bits, moderately useful.

i have watched some of his stuff, i couldnt find anything that was 'really low-grade' i found it good stuff,

did you just feel the need to rubbish him regardless?

[R G]

Originally Posted by timedate

i have watched some of his stuff, i couldnt find anything that was 'really low-grade' i found it good stuff,



did you just feel the need to rubbish him regardless?

This is a forum. It’s meant for public opinion!

People have different opinions, and this is my personal opinion. Or should I conform to what your views are, and retract what I had said?

The fact that that I’ve spent time watching many of his posts, would indicate that I’m somewhat ‘interested’ in what he has to say. But, some of the way in which he articulates his views, strike me as rather low-grade.

Me saying that, isn’t rubbishing him.

I could justify further and provide reasons to you for my critique, but then, I don’t need to.

[timedate]

Originally Posted by R G

This is a forum. It’s meant for public opinion!

People have different opinions, and this is my personal opinion. Or should I conform to what your views are, and retract what I had said?

The fact that that I’ve spent time watching many of his posts, would indicate that I’m somewhat ‘interested’ in what he has to say. But, some of the way in which he articulates his views, strike me as rather low-grade.

Me saying that, isn’t rubbishing him.

I could justify further and provide reasons to you for my critique, but then, I don’t need to.

Except that none of his content is 'really low grade'

if i was watching something that i found 'really low-grade' i wouldnt be spending time 'watching many of his posts' and that is your contradiction.

Now is it 'really low grade' or 'rather low grade'?

[CarrJ]

Originally Posted by R G

Some of his content is really low-grade. Other bits, moderately useful.

He seems to know his stuff. Very useful information. The stories are great.

[R G]

Sorry. Are you a friend of his or something??

Why are you labouring the point?

I’ve watched a few of his videos, some of which I’ve found to be really low-grade.

I needed to watch a few of his videos to have been able to have reached my conclusion. Like i said, some ok, some not. Just like many other people who choose to put themselves out there in the internet.

And, I may choose to watch further videos of his, if the content or subject is relevant.

No contradiction.

I hope that’s clear enough for you.

[timedate]

Originally Posted by R G

Sorry. Are you a friend of his or something??

Why are you labouring the point?

I’ve watched a few of his videos, some of which I’ve found to be really low-grade.

I needed to watch a few of his videos to have been able to have reached my conclusion. Like i said, some ok, some not. Just like many other people who choose to put themselves out there in the internet.

And, I may choose to watch further videos of his, if the content or subject is relevant.

No contradiction.

I hope that’s clear enough for you.

no, never met him, but he knows his onions.

[R G]

Originally Posted by timedate

no, never met him, but he knows his onions.

Yep that’s fair. He does.

[timedate]

Originally Posted by R G

Yep that’s fair. He does.

[R G]

Originally Posted by timedate

I’ve watched some more content of Paul’s and I felt I should come back and say I was wrong.

Rather than saying I thought he was this or that, I should have explained in a far nicer way that I think the production of the videos could be a little more polished (my personal take is that it’s a better delivery with a good mic and fixed setting).

I have to retract my statement because what he’s actually saying is informative and that’s the important part.

My initial comment was based on his production and delivery of the content, not what he was actually saying, which is useful and better than others I have seen on YouTube.

I’d agree with the OP, that his content is worth watching.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by timedate

no, never met him, but he knows his onions.

But does he know about his watches?

[The Kermit]

Came across him on you tube last week must say quite enjoy watching. Nice to see from a dealer perspective without the crap

[Xtralarg]

I've been in the watch world for 20+ years, not as a dealer, definitely an enthusiast. In my opinion Paul's knowledge is excellent, I love his channel and its content.

He is getting praised by other YouTube watch people and I think his channel will do very well. It is already gathering momentum.

[boktan]

Watched the episode on why he left the watch industry, quite sad really.

[roviw]

I bought my GMT 16700 from him about 4 1/2 years ago, absolutely thrilled with the watch, it was as described and he was a great chap to deal with and a pleasure to meet him for the hand over at his office near Gatwick at the time.

[EDL7]

Great to see him back!

[interestedwatcher]

I really enjoy his videos. Makes a nice change from Paul Pluta.

[yoniman]

He's my latest favourite watch YouTuber. But this is somewhat alarming if true.

Treat it with a grain of salt.
https://www.watchpro.com/fake-rolex-...ictions-order/


Cheers

[Xtralarg]

Originally Posted by yoniman

He's my latest favourite watch YouTuber. But this is somewhat alarming if true.

Treat it with a grain of salt.
https://www.watchpro.com/fake-rolex-...ictions-order/


Cheers

I don't see what this has to do with Paul Thorpe?

[Hendrikus]

Originally Posted by yoniman

He's my latest favourite watch YouTuber. But this is somewhat alarming if true.

Treat it with a grain of salt.
https://www.watchpro.com/fake-rolex-...ictions-order/


Cheers

This was Jamie Thorpe. Are you suggesting it’s the same person?

[Buzzlite]

....

[collarcity]

Good content but a lot of his 15+ minute videos could easily be 3 minutes. He and many others on YT tend to ramble. Get to the point.

[zewill]

Originally Posted by collarcity

Good content but a lot of his 15+ minute videos could easily be 3 minutes. He and many others on YT tend to ramble. Get to the point.

This exactly. Added to the fact his videos are most of the time his face for 100% of the video...
I found i was wasting too much time. Now, when I wanna watch a video of his, i put his videos on my phone, my phone in my pocket, and do something else, like washing up or hoover :D

Seriously, youtubers are rewarded for long videos (more ads, lenghty ads).. it's a very dangerous road. Will produce more quantity and less quality.

[Brew]

Does Mr. Thorpe always work from his car?

I suspect he knows a whole lot more about watches than the Rolex Rolex Rolex hawt content he's putting out. But that's what the market wants . . . .

[timedate]

Originally Posted by Brew

Does Mr. Thorpe always work from his car?

I suspect he knows a whole lot more about watches than the Rolex Rolex Rolex hawt content he's putting out. But that's what the market wants . . . .

a car is often a mobile office for many people

[Hendrikus]

So if anyone goes to WikiWatchLeaks, you will see it confirmed that Jamie Thorpe (the convicted watch fraudster) is in fact Paul Thorpe's son.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZD4qUBuqVY

The fact that this conviction fits in with when Paul departed YouTube may or may not be a coincidence (Paul clearly cites the robberies he endured as the reason).

As Paul Thorpe says in his statement, he is not responsible for the actions of a "relative". However, and I say this as someone who has found his return to YouTube to be refreshing and his videos to be very helpful, I am slightly surprised that he chose to use the word "relative" throughout, rather than son, denoting further distance from him as would be the case. Who refers to their son as a "relative"?!

I also think Paul Thorpe has to be realistic: basing much of his content on being an honest ex-dealer seeking to help us buyers out there, he should not be surprised that people will find it odd that his own son is a convicted watch fraudster. This weekend alone I have been the victim of two attempts at watch fraud, and believe you me, I have no time whatsoever for people like that.

I will remain open minded about Paul Thorpe, but I think he can expect more and more scrutiny as he seeks to build a YouTube and podcast presence that generates an income for him.

[R G]

Originally Posted by Hendrikus

So if anyone goes to WikiWatchLeaks, you will see it confirmed that Jamie Thorpe (the convicted watch fraudster) is in fact Paul Thorpe's son.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZD4qUBuqVY

The fact that this conviction fits in with when Paul departed YouTube may or may not be a coincidence (Paul clearly cites the robberies he endured as the reason).

As Paul Thorpe says in his statement, he is not responsible for the actions of a "relative". However, and I say this as someone who has found his return to YouTube to be refreshing and his videos to be very helpful, I am slightly surprised that he chose to use the word "relative" throughout, rather than son, denoting further distance from him as would be the case. Who refers to their son as a "relative"?!

I also think Paul Thorpe has to be realistic: basing much of his content on being an honest ex-dealer seeking to help us buyers out there, he should not be surprised that people will find it odd that his own son is a convicted watch fraudster. This weekend alone I have been the victim of two attempts at watch fraud, and believe you me, I have no time whatsoever for people like that.

I will remain open minded about Paul Thorpe, but I think he can expect more and more scrutiny as he seeks to build a YouTube and podcast presence that generates an income for him.

I wasn’t aware of any of this. Just searched and the internet has so many references of this story about his ‘relative’.

Thats not ideal.

[CaveDweller]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZD4qUBuqVY

Paul answers for himself on this WikiWatchLeaks video

[Xtralarg]

I don't see why Paul should be judged because of something his son did. Many honest people have sons who have fallen foul of the law.

Put this in perspective. Paul isn't trying to sell watches, he is trying to build up a YouTube channel by producing informative videos from a dealers perspective. Draw inference from what you see and learn from his shared experience. It's not costing anything to watch him, if anyone feels like his is guilty by association then simply move on and watch Bark&Jack drinking coffee and talking sh1t.