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

[Naples09]

Maybe David gave him permission to use the original pics.

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

[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...

[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..

[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.

[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 ......

[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?

[MonBK]

Has anyone alerted the seller or David?

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by MonBK

Has anyone alerted the seller or David?

Yes, David

[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.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by Tony64

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.

Not sure if your first comment above was a shot at me, but I had a situation in which I was given a warning for using "old" photos in one of my listings. I have renewed a listing that had gotten stale. I dropped the price, and used the same photos as the original listing. The original listing and the new listing were maybe 2-3 weeks apart and the watch was not worn from the time I listed it the first time. I was given the warning, and the reason was "things could have changed condition wise" from the first time I listed it. Even though it was never worn from the first listing, I was told if it was relisted it had to be fresh photos....

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by tommy91

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?

The second part of your statement assumes that :
a.) something happened in transit to damage the watch and that
b.) the photos would be used without the knowledge or permission of the original seller.

I don't think anyone would argue that reusing the original photos in that situation is inappropriate.


But the first part of your comment was : "even if bought and not worn and they are listing straight away you still have to list current photos".

Do I understand correctly that if bought, not used, and listed again immediately, you would insist that photos be retaken regardless?

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

Not sure if your first comment above was a shot at me, but I had a situation in which I was given a warning for using "old" photos in one of my listings. I have renewed a listing that had gotten stale. I dropped the price, and used the same photos as the original listing. The original listing and the new listing were maybe 2-3 weeks apart and the watch was not worn from the time I listed it the first time. I was given the warning, and the reason was "things could have changed condition wise" from the first time I listed it. Even though it was never worn from the first listing, I was told if it was relisted it had to be fresh photos....

I had no idea of your situation. I actually agree with you and am really shocked to hear that it wasn't allowed, considering the circumstances.

Obviously not our house so not our rules. I've learned something from your experience. Thank you - sincerely. I don't completely understand or agree, but that's not for me to decide.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by Tony64

I had no idea of your situation. I actually agree with you and am really shocked to hear that it wasn't allowed, considering the circumstances.

Obviously not our house so not our rules. I've learned something from your experience. Thank you - sincerely. I don't completely understand or agree, but that's not for me to decide.

[cht]

ad is gone...

[tommy91]

Originally Posted by Tony64

The second part of your statement assumes that :
a.) something happened in transit to damage the watch and that
b.) the photos would be used without the knowledge or permission of the original seller.

I don't think anyone would argue that reusing the original photos in that situation is inappropriate.


But the first part of your comment was : "even if bought and not worn and they are listing straight away you still have to list current photos".

Do I understand correctly that if bought, not used, and listed again immediately, you would insist that photos be retaken regardless?

Yes if the watch passes from one owner to another you can't use the original owners photos in a for sale AD.

I am not assuming anything happened in transit. It is just a possibility that may alter the original condition of the watch, also if the watch was tried on it may alter the condition from the original owners photos.

Therefore it is paramount to take current photos when listing a for sale ad not past owners photos. It's like me buying direct from AD not touching the watch and listing a link to the rolex website for the watch in question.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by cht

ad is gone...

Must have been taken down by a mod.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by tommy91

Yes if the watch passes from one owner to another you can't use the original owners photos in a for sale AD.

I can't say that I agree with this, but that doesn't matter because it appears that you are correct if I extrapolate correctly from Jason's experience above.

"Current condition" photos are essential, of this there is no dispute. If I photograph a watch for sale yesterday and dropped it on the tile floor today, my photo is no longer any good.

What I'm failing to understand is if a watch's current condition is as photographed, what difference does it make if the photo was taken yesterday or last week? Where is the line drawn? How many days pass before a photo is no longer "current", assuming nothing has changed to effect the condition in the interim? If I take the watch out to show it to you, or god forbid let you try it on, am I committed to re-photograph?

I realize this is beginning to sound like a rant, and it's got little to do with the OP's situation which was quite clearly a scam, but I'm genuinely curious.

At the very least I've learned something new today from Jason regarding forum rules that I hadn't previously appreciated. Any day I learn something new is a good day. Today therefore is a good day.

For this I am grateful.

[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.