Tudor Purchase on eBay - Am I an Idiot?

[jsg199]

Hi, all. Purchased a Tudor Prince Oysterdate today on eBay. Ended up paying $643 for it. No original bracelet, but otherwise the watch appears to be in pretty decent condition.

The seller said he purchased from eBay not long ago as a gift but it arrived too late and he didn't need it anymore. The pictures used were repurposed from the original eBay posting.

Does this seem legit? The pictures on eBay showed the caseback with the Rolex signature, but no serial number, no movement pic, etc.

eBay posting link

[beshannon]

I would not have bought with reused images and that story, best of luck to you.

[kieselguhr]

When it arrives, you could get it pressure checked at an authorized service center and find out that way. With regard to whether you are an idiot, you’re an adult and you make decisions, live with the consequences.


AOW

[jsg199]

You're both right.

The story is a bit weird and why not show new pics. That being said, he seems to have a good reputation based on his history.

I can be an idiot and have to live with the consequences of that!!

[Sublovin]

Right...People buy used watches that cost hundreds as gifts all the time. Then we they arrive late, They just give the person a gift card and throw the watch in a drawer to be sold at a later date...
Ps. Can’t be bothered to take a couple quick phone pics.

Completely reasonable

[Trench Watch Guy]

Doesn't pass the smell test.

[jsg199]

I know, I know. The bid was ending soon and I acted impulsively. Definitely a strange story but the seller has a good history, and at the end of the day I can potentially apply the eBay return policy.

[42itus]

Let us know how this works out!

[Kingface66]

Man, I hope it works out for you. But, that watch has been listed (found in the completed sales option) three times in the last 6 weeks. I'm guessing you're the most recent buyer.
And besides using the original photos, the text content was repurposed, as well.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tudor-74000...p2047675.l2557

[jsg199]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Man, I hope it works out for you. But, that watch has been listed (found in the completed sales option) three times in the last 6 weeks. I'm guessing you're the most recent buyer.
And besides using the original photos, the text content was repurposed, as well.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tudor-74000...p2047675.l2557

Didn't realize I could track "completed sales" like that. I can see the seller listed, took off, then put back on, so that's two listings plus the original in which he purchased. The second listing content matches the third because he took off then put back on - hopefully this explains it?

[jsg199]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Man, I hope it works out for you. But, that watch has been listed (found in the completed sales option) three times in the last 6 weeks. I'm guessing you're the most recent buyer.
And besides using the original photos, the text content was repurposed, as well.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tudor-74000...p2047675.l2557

Also how can you tell it's the same watch?

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by jsg199

Also how can you tell it's the same watch?

Seriously? Because it's the exact same set of pictures. It's also the exact same, word for word description which your seller copied and pasted.

Original seller, followed by the guy's listing you bought it from:

[jsg199]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Seriously? Because it's the exact same set of pictures. It's also the exact same, word for word description which your seller copied and pasted.

Original seller, followed by the guy's listing you bought it from:

I appreciate your help. Before I was on my mobile device but now at home so it's easier to cross reference. Yep - I see the link to the prior posting, and for sure the exact same pics -- which the new seller admitted he was using -- and also word-for-word copy of the original listing. However, it's possible, to save time, he provided his explanation of why he was selling and then just pasted in the old description.

To me, this still follows the explanation, because he purchased the watch and admitted he was quickly re-selling, and I see he ended the listing and re-posted, hence three listings.

Did you do an eBay search and enter "Tudor" and then check the "Sale Items" book and scroll through every listing to find the match? Is that how you were able to find it being relisted?

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by jsg199

I appreciate your help. Before I was on my mobile device but now at home so it's easier to cross reference. Yep - I see the link to the prior posting, and for sure the exact same pics -- which the new seller admitted he was using -- and also word-for-word copy of the original listing. However, it's possible, to save time, he provided his explanation of why he was selling and then just pasted in the old description.

To me, this still follows the explanation, because he purchased the watch and admitted he was quickly re-selling, and I see he ended the listing and re-posted, hence three listings.

Did you do an eBay search and enter "Tudor" and then check the "Sale Items" book and scroll through every listing to find the match? Is that how you were able to find it being relisted?

yeah, definitely didn't mean to suggest that the latest seller was doing anything nefarious by using the original pics and text. Sometimes, it's just easier and succinct to do it that way.

As for searching previous sales, it's pretty easy to simply type in the brand and model of a watch and see what the "Completed Listings" shows. Or, you can always just use Google Images and search a photo to see where it's turned up before.

[TudorTom]

I'm going to go against the grain here, while admitting that I'm probably influenced by my own experiences - both as someone who earns a living selling on eBay, and who has purchased four Tudor watches there.

The first of the three previous listings is probably when the seller purchased the watch. Maybe he's having to sell it soon after buying it due to unexpected financial hardship - and didn't want to state this in the listing and attract bottom feeder offers.
The second completed listing was probably a non-paying bidder.
Presume that the third completed listing was when you purchased it.

I think it's more likely than not that you'll actually be okay - and worst case, you'll get your money back without any hassle. The eBay money-back guarantee is very solid - and I'm speaking as someone who's invoked it more than once. There's some exceptions to this, but I think it's actually one of the most buyer friendly places to acquire used items.

[Sublovin]

^^ please just be sure to let us all know how it plays out.

[jsg199]

Ok. We'll see. I do appreciate everyone chiming in. I'm new to all of this and the support and information helps! In a way, it's also fun to play eBay detective.

I will definitely let everyone know how this plays out. I'm not expecting a Tudor in perfect condition - I'm happy to pay less for a watch that is a little scuffed up. Hopefully it's running ok, and if not, also I'm willing to have it serviced. Just hoping case/dial/hands/movement is legit.

I have a modern Datejust 36, and while I like it, wanted something with pre-modern proportions.

[Dan S]

My gut feeling is that the seller was just doing a half-assed job, and you will be fine. eBay and PayPal give you a lot of protection anyway.

[Andad]

As has been said I don't see any real issues.

You are protected if there is a problem.

The seller has a history on Ebay.

[Toronto Soup King]

$643 is a good price for that watch if it's not a total wreck. And if it's a duff listing eBay will give you your $643 back. I've bought some old dogs on that site (for FAR more money!) and while you're a little anxious waiting to see just what you might get, it always worked out well for me. Good luck and let us know how it proceeds!

[Gary Busey]

So??

[BisonHead]

Any updates?

[jsg199]

**UPDATE**

The watch arrived and is as described in the eBay post.  Initial impressions:

As per eBay post - scratches on crystal at 6; some corrosion on the minute and hour hands; the lugs have fairly significant "scratches" -- more depressions in the metal from someone likely not using a proper tool to remove the band than mere scratches.

Other impressions - after a couple hours of running, the watch is keeping flawless time; the crown pops out and there is a satisfying winding action; the quickset date adjust works and hacking works.  The rotor (or some other part) seems lose -- when moving my wrist with any force, there is a loud "back-and-forth" noise.  

Tomorrow I'm going to look into having it inspected for authenticity and condition.  I live in NYC -- I'm thinking of taking to Tourneau, where I purchased my modern Datejust, or the Rolex center on 5th Avenue.  Any other ideas?

Also, is it me, or does the cyclops/date window seem off? Doesn't seem as magnified as I would expect compared to my modern Datejust. Also, the lume at 3 o'clock seems weird - no lume at 3/next to date on my Datejust.

Thanks all!

[locutus49]

I'm suspicious;

[offrdmania]

Tudor magnification is lower than Rolex. The date window looks like it has been polished, giving it that wavy effect.

If you can remove the strap and take some clear pics of the engravings between the lugs, it would allow us to tell you if the case is real or not.

Here is a pic of two Tudor cases, can you tell which one is real and which one is the fake?

[jsg199]

Originally Posted by offrdmania

Tudor magnification is lower than Rolex. The date window looks like it has been polished, giving it that wavy effect.

If you can remove the strap and take some clear pics of the engravings between the lugs, it would allow us to tell you if the case is real or not.

Here is a pic of two Tudor cases, can you tell which one is real and which one is the fake?

I'm guessing the case on the left is real and the one on the right, with the clearer engravings, is fake.

Below are the shots of mine - 74000 at 12 and 42275 at 6. The engravings are difficult to see and it took just the right lighting and angle for the numbers to appear in the pics below.

Thanks for your help with this!!!

[TudorTom]

While I'm far from an expert, I own 3 Prince Oysterdates (2 of similar vintage) and still think this one looks OK based on visual appearance. The serial number you shared seems to be missing a digit though - do you have a loupe/can you double check that there's not another digit preceding the 4?

Originally Posted by jsg199

As per eBay post - scratches on crystal at 6; some corrosion on the minute and hour hands; the lugs have fairly significant "scratches" -- more depressions in the metal from someone likely not using a proper tool to remove the band than mere scratches.

This watch looks old enough to be an acrylic crystal model - as long as the scratches aren't so deep that they will catch your fingernail, a few minutes with some Polywatch and a q-tip will probably get them out.

The U-shaped marks on the lugs are almost certainly from a previous metal bracelet and are pretty typical. If there are scratches on the brushed surface, a fiberglass scratch brush (Euro Tool, Bergeon and others make them) used carefully will usually work well to remove them.

Originally Posted by jsg199

Tomorrow I'm going to look into having it inspected for authenticity and condition.  I live in NYC -- I'm thinking of taking to Tourneau, where I purchased my modern Datejust, or the Rolex center on 5th Avenue.  Any other ideas?

You might be more fortunate, but I've found most of the staff at both locations of my local Rolex AD to be pretty clueless when it comes to vintage Tudors. I rely on a qualified independent watchmaker for authentication and most other maintenance needs - as I've found him to be infinitely more knowledgeable.

Originally Posted by jsg199

Also, is it me, or does the cyclops/date window seem off? Doesn't seem as magnified as I would expect compared to my modern Datejust. Also, the lume at 3 o'clock seems weird - no lume at 3/next to date on my Datejust.

It might be due to polishing, and/or the crystal may have been replaced with an aftermarket one that doesn't have quite the same level of magnification - not uncommon, especially for an older watch.

I seem to recall that my 1969 7206/1 has a lume dot at 3:00, but the 1986 75404 that is on my wrist right now doesn't have one -- and I'm nearly positive my 1995 72033 doesn't either. Doubt you need to be concerned about this.

[jsg199]

Originally Posted by TudorTom

The serial number you shared seems to be missing a digit though - do you have a loupe/can you double check that there's not another digit preceding the 4?

I checked again with flashlight, and I'm almost sure that only 5 numbers are listed - 42275. Hope this isn't a bad sign!

[linesiders]

Need better photos, overall looks OK but need clear, straight on shots of the engravings

Originally Posted by offrdmania

Tudor magnification is lower than Rolex. The date window looks like it has been polished, giving it that wavy effect.

Well they use the same factory crystal in most cases, so no. The exception is when the datewheel is at a different focal point.

[offrdmania]

Originally Posted by linesiders

Need better photos, overall looks OK but need clear, straight on shots of the engravings



Well they use the same factory crystal in most cases, so no. The exception is when the datewheel is at a different focal point.

I was always under the impression that vintage Tudor magnifiers were 1.5 whereas Rolex was 2.5 from the factory