Hong Kong Auction - Vintage Rolex

[Rameez-Q]

Thought I would give some heads up to anyone that may be interested

I found some vintage rolex going on auction in Hong Kong - It's run by antiquorum of whom I do not know of or have any affiliation.


1675 - http://www.antiquorum.com/catalog/lo...297-251?page=7

1675 radial - http://www.antiquorum.com/catalog/lo...297-252?page=7

5513 - http://www.antiquorum.com/catalog/lo...297-253?page=7

1019 - http://www.antiquorum.com/catalog/lo...297-257?page=7

Looks like some nice pieces with a low guide, but will most definitely exceed guide prices!

[sitka39]

I don't want to be off-topic, but just yesterday I was reading about how a stolen watch was put up for auction at these guys' auction house. They agreed to return it to a consigneur or whatever you call it and not directly to the owner, although he had papers and all. It was, also, very difficult for the owner to get his watch back. (it was an a lange... some LE I think)

[jban5]

Are you referring to this article?

http://www.watchprosite.com/?page=wf...i=7312838&pzt=

[Boaters]

Looks like some very nice pieces

[springer]

Originally Posted by jban5

Are you referring to this article?

http://www.watchprosite.com/?page=wf...i=7312838&pzt=

Interesting article. I would concur with the rightful owner who in the referenced article wrote...Antiquorum's way of dealing with this matter is unprofessional and deplorable.

[Miami Manny]

This is an interesting case and I disagree with Mr Springer. It seems we disagree a lot:)

From the collectors (owners) point of view, he did everything he "thought" he should do in order to get his watch back. In retrospect its easy to say what he should have done differently, but he provided proof and followed AQ's instructions.

This reminds me of what happened to me years ago with paypal, when they froze my account and told me in order to unfreeze it I needed to provide documents, receipts, fax this and that. In the end, they had no intention of releasing the funds, they just wanted to waste my time, see if I could even provide proof and they knew full well they wouldn't unfreeze the account. I digress...

AQ had no intention of returning this watch to its rightful owner. There was nothing the owner could have asked or provided AQ that would have gotten his watch back.

Now, AQ from a business standpoint did the right thing and the ONLY thing they could or should have done. I know that sucks but, they are not the police or a judge or a jury. If they get proof that a watch they are auctioning is stolen, or contains aftermarket parts, they HAVE to return it to the person who consigned it. If they don't then they are liable for everything. They are not in a position to decide, if there is doubt they must return it and let it play out.

Now, what they "could" do is put the owner and the consignor in contact with each other voluntarily. If they choose not to or refuse to, then the watch owner should get a court order to get them to release the identity of the consignor. Then get the authorities involved in whatever state or country the consignor resides and seize the watch.

The owner is going to have to get the authorities involved. He has a lock on the whereabouts now and he better move fast before its gone again..

[CaveDiver]

Originally Posted by Miami Manny

This is an interesting case and I disagree with Mr Springer. It seems we disagree a lot:)

From the collectors (owners) point of view, he did everything he "thought" he should do in order to get his watch back. In retrospect its easy to say what he should have done differently, but he provided proof and followed AQ's instructions.

This reminds me of what happened to me years ago with paypal, when they froze my account and told me in order to unfreeze it I needed to provide documents, receipts, fax this and that. In the end, they had no intention of releasing the funds, they just wanted to waste my time, see if I could even provide proof and they knew full well they wouldn't unfreeze the account. I digress...

AQ had no intention of returning this watch to its rightful owner. There was nothing the owner could have asked or provided AQ that would have gotten his watch back.

Now, AQ from a business standpoint did the right thing and the ONLY thing they could or should have done. I know that sucks but, they are not the police or a judge or a jury. If they get proof that a watch they are auctioning is stolen, or contains aftermarket parts, they HAVE to return it to the person who consigned it. If they don't then they are liable for everything. They are not in a position to decide, if there is doubt they must return it and let it play out.

Now, what they "could" do is put the owner and the consignor in contact with each other voluntarily. If they choose not to or refuse to, then the watch owner should get a court order to get them to release the identity of the consignor. Then get the authorities involved in whatever state or country the consignor resides and seize the watch.

The owner is going to have to get the authorities involved. He has a lock on the whereabouts now and he better move fast before its gone again..

Depending on the law of the land, most likely AQ does not have legal authority to determine ownership. Most likely that is up to the legal system.

1) What does the contract the consignor had with AQ state? Anonymity, how long they can hold property, or any other bits and bobs..
2) It appears AQ took the course of action that they beleive limited their liability in the matter.
3) What is the law of the land and who has jurisdiction etc becomes possible claims and avenues for the claimant.
List goes on and on. Morally could they of handled the sitituation different, of course. Why couldn't they delayed delayed delayed the return of the watch until the consignor forced AQ with a formal demand to return the property which could have given the claimant time to figure out what he needed to do to stop the return from occurring. At this point it appears he will have to bring legal action against AQ to attempt to resolve the matter. Sad, but that is what it is at this point.

Please ignore the grammar as am in a hurry..
CD

[harry in montreal]

I don't think The auction has an obligation to return stolen property. They aren't withholding agents or bailiffs. However, they do not look good to the community. An auction seller cannot sell property that is known to be tainted with a theft claim. You would think that they could be forced,to disclose who consigned it. Likely legal action would be required. Now, if the consignor got the watch back after being informed of the police report, and if he subsequently sold it.... Then he could have serious legal issues. Caveat; this is not legal advice; I don't know any of the parties here, nor am I am attorney. Plus I had a big salmon tartar and 4 glasses of wine an hour ago.

[Nobody.Move]

@harry in montreal
"Plus I had a big salmon tartar and 4 glasses of wine an hour ago."
Priceless

[lee fowler]

Originally Posted by harry in montreal

Plus I had a big salmon tartar and 4 glasses of wine an hour ago.

Priceless

[Dries]

Originally Posted by jban5

Are you referring to this article?

http://www.watchprosite.com/?page=wf...i=7312838&pzt=

Thank you for sharing the article.