Perezcope latest - Daytona @ Auction - A 'Big Dred'.

[joli160]

Great detective work again Jose.

[TuRo]

Mr Parmegiani doesn't come across as a pumped-up, self-regarding clown whatsoever, does he !?

[joli160]

Originally Posted by TuRo

Mr Parmegiani doesn't come across as a pumped-up, self-regarding clown whatsoever, does he !?

That’s a nice choice of words

[cascavel]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

We're discussing misleading customers on a $70,000 watch, not including auction premiums and taxes. There's no room for subtlety. Since the watch was advertised and sold publicly, the refutation needed to be made publicly and assertively.

Absolutely correct. The "experts" at the auction houses should do their due diligence before they print or post the catalogs. Once they go public they deserve to be blasted. That's what good investigative journalism demands and nothing short of that will shame them into changing bad habits.

[77T]

For any defenders - I think one's opinion might change if you were the buyer of that Daytona.

Not ranting against their posts, but looking through the catalogues for enjoyment is one thing.
Finding a fake is another.

Having Rolex's restoration atelier send you a message that your Monaco Auction house Daytona purchased 2-years earlier is a Frankenstein (or worse, with a replica dial and fake bridge) might change one's opinion.

Here is my opinion - if the auctions wouldn't rush to the block with a newly acquired important piece then more time spent validating the watch would remedy problems like this BEFORE the catalogue goes out.

Jose does a detailed job of producing comparisons. The bridge for the "Lolex" is not remedied by swapping out a dial. So how does the auction's IG post address that? I didn't see an explanation...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[DoricSpiker]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

You wouldn’t bid on a lot you liked with Monaco legends because of the instagram response to Jose?

I for one wouldn't touch them now.

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

We're discussing misleading customers on a $70,000 watch, not including auction premiums and taxes. There's no room for subtlety. Since the watch was advertised and sold publicly, the refutation needed to be made publicly and assertively.

May I offer my felicitations for the use of 'refutation', a word hardly used by anyone anymore sadly.

[Dan S]

Huge embarrassment for the auction house, both the catalog listing and the childish defensive response.

And for those who are thinking "buyer beware, you should hire an expert to handle the watch in-person," these high-end auctioneers are supposedly backing up their lots by in-house expertise. That is what has allowed prices to skyrocket with buyers competing over the internet from around the world.

[offrdmania]

This whole thing reminds me of the current state of the media news. First to the headlines with a story whether its accurate or not and if its not, we will post a retraction or update to the story on the 6th page in the bottom left hand corner a week later after the damage has been done.

[Jackie Daytona]

What a ridiculous response from the auction house.

Although I don’t have as keen of eyes as Perezscope or many on this forum really….lol, once the inconsistencies were shown and pointed out, what a massive screwup on the part of the auction house as obvious as it seems like it should have been in their position.

[Haywood_Milton]

Originally Posted by TuRo

May I offer my felicitations for the use of 'refutation', a word hardly used by anyone anymore sadly.

Was it used correctly ?

I suggest that in context it was not. Any refutation was performed by José.

[rootbeer7]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

Was it used correctly ?

I suggest that in context it was not. Any refutation was performed by José.

I’m with H

[ts3]

I was interested in the Patek 3711/1G from the same catalog. To my disappointment the catalog essay misrepresented that watch as one of the rarest Nautilus, claiming "approximately 700 examples of the Ref. 3711 produced, with only 100 in white gold" when in fact any and all 3711 where made in white gold and the number has been estimated to be 600-700. Either they tried to make the watch a lot more rare than it is or they know nothing.

[TuRo]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

Was it used correctly ?

I suggest that in context it was not. Any refutation was performed by José.

Looks correct to me t.b.h, as any initial attempted refuting (albeit crappily), was by Mr Parmegiani.

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton

Was it used correctly ?

I suggest that in context it was not. Any refutation was performed by José.

The auction house and some of their supporters have said that Jose could have approached them privately with his findings. Mr. Blobby said that Jose’s criticism came off as "overly aggressive or accusatorial." The refutation I defended is Jose’s refutation against the auction house and their representatives.

[MrBlobby]

So let’s say you have a cocaine addiction or don’t have a cocaine issue, then do you really need someone on the internet saying that you have squandered your wealth up your nose and that you should go and snort another line?

Or if you are overweight then do you need someone saying that they don’t trust you further than they can throw you which isn’t very far because you are fat.

And not particularly enjoying that aspect shouldn’t be seen as being a big fan of the auction houses.

Likewise I think aspects of hodinkee are enjoyable but they seem to get trashed everywhere. It’s like there is no middle ground anymore.

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

So let’s say you have a cocaine addiction or don’t have a cocaine issue, then do you really need someone on the internet saying that you have squandered your wealth up your nose and that you should go and snort another line?

Or if you are overweight then do you need someone saying that they don’t trust you further than they can throw you which isn’t very far because you are fat.

And not particularly enjoying that aspect shouldn’t be seen as being a big fan of the auction houses.

Likewise I think aspects of hodinkee are enjoyable but they seem to get trashed everywhere. It’s like there is no middle ground anymore.

Are you going to conveniently ignore the cockroach insult that came before the "snort something" statement?

[MrBlobby]

This is what I said yesterday:
“ It’s depressing stuff. Whatever the truth do we really need the stuff about cockroaches, cocaine and projectiles?”

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

This is what I said yesterday:
“ It’s depressing stuff. Whatever the truth do we really need the stuff about cockroaches, cocaine and projectiles?”

Got it . And the answer is no we don’t.

[Dom9]

Keep up the good work Jose!

[swaini3]

Typical reaction, sad too. When someone states the truth, others gang up and call him out and fault him instead. Some dealers follow the same approach.

[swaini3]

Someone should ask Mr Parmegiani where they got the papers from and where country code 909 is from?
Oh, we'll find a replacement for that too.

[pereztroika]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

This is what I said yesterday:
“ It’s depressing stuff. Whatever the truth do we really need the stuff about cockroaches, cocaine and projectiles?”

Nobody needs that so why bring it up here? The guy in question used to be friendly but after my recent Deep Sea Special article in which he wasn't mentioned with a single word, he turned on me. Turns out he was deeply involved in the sales of that watch and also peddlled the false "record-watch" narrative.

This is not the first time he insulted me in public. He is also someone who went around telling people that a UK dealer, who was a heroin addict back in the day, is a junkie, in an attempt to kill his business. I just gave him a taste of his own medicine.


Cheers
Jose

[MrBlobby]

I mention it because whilst I am a fan of your work and articles there are aspects that I don’t quite like. In my opinion the forum at times needs a bit more balance. However because I am not gushing in praise all the time it is seen that I am cheerleading for Monaco. I understand that BJSonline is being rude but that isn’t always a reason to ramp up the insults.

I also get the point that it makes sense to add colour to the articles to make them more entertaining. In fairness I probably like a bit of that but feel at times it goes too far.

The case of the Patek that was not delivered to the buyer and then appeared at auction is an interesting one. I’m not exactly sure what the auction house played in that was or what they should have done differently but it doesn’t quite feel right to accuse them of handling stolen goods of being a fence. At worst they knew about the deal and muscled in on it but it is equally possible they did not know about it until after the catalogue was produced when they were contacted by the American buyer. I do feel at that point they handled her very badly but that doesn’t in my view make them criminals and I can understand that they would feel under attack by being accused of criminality (and I can’t remember if you accused them of being a fence or not but someone did). I feel that on all angles is damaging for the market.

On top of this I feel that auctioneers and dealers have an important role to play. At least auction houses publish serial numbers but the way we are going I feel that may stop.

[996marty]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

I mention it because whilst I am a fan of your work and articles there are aspects that I don’t quite like. In my opinion the forum at times needs a bit more balance. However because I am not gushing in praise all the time it is seen that I am cheerleading for Monaco. I understand that BJSonline is being rude but that isn’t always a reason to ramp up the insults.

I also get the point that it makes sense to add colour to the articles to make them more entertaining. In fairness I probably like a bit of that but feel at times it goes too far.

The case of the Patek that was not delivered to the buyer and then appeared at auction is an interesting one. I’m not exactly sure what the auction house played in that was or what they should have done differently but it doesn’t quite feel right to accuse them of handling stolen goods of being a fence. At worst they knew about the deal and muscled in on it but it is equally possible they did not know about it until after the catalogue was produced when they were contacted by the American buyer. I do feel at that point they handled her very badly but that doesn’t in my view make them criminals and I can understand that they would feel under attack by being accused of criminality (and I can’t remember if you accused them of being a fence or not but someone did). I feel that on all angles is damaging for the market.

On top of this I feel that auctioneers and dealers have an important role to play. At least auction houses publish serial numbers but the way we are going I feel that may stop.

Mistakes can and will always happen but for me Auction houses selling top end watches or anything else for that matter should do their homework and be confident in the item they list is good for the description they put on it.
I’m all for them being outed because you have to feel sorry for any potential buyers buying something listed as one thing and potentially ending up with something else.
And tbh the response from the auction house is laughable and disrespectful to any potential buyer

[Crown & Shield]

Originally Posted by 996marty

Mistakes can and will always happen but for me Auction houses selling top end watches or anything else for that matter should do their homework and be confident in the item they list is good for the description they put on it.
I’m all for them being outed because you have to feel sorry for any potential buyers buying something listed as one thing and potentially ending up with something else.
And tbh the response from the auction house is laughable and disrespectful to any potential buyer

All of the above. Auction houses have 0 credibility, especially that one from Monaco.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

I mention it because whilst I am a fan of your work and articles there are aspects that I don’t quite like.

What is the point of criticizing Jose for the way he writes his articles, which are clearly intended to get attention, and succeed. He is also successfully trolling the bad actors, and he draws out their responses, which are telling. Yes, he is very adversarial and makes ad hominem attacks. That's his choice. Read his blog, or don't read it.

[HMHM]

Yeah yeah yeah for the group of blood suckers watch dealers, they are always “right”, full of “integrity”. Without Jose, they would have gladly sold the winning bidder the watch and take the cash without an ounce of guilt. It’s because of people like Jose that made commoners know the BS that these people are doing behind the scenes.

Informing them “discretely”, so that they can swap parts and pretend like nothing happened?These people should be sent to jail for running a scam!

[joli160]

Originally Posted by HMHM

Yeah yeah yeah for the group of blood suckers watch dealers, they are always “right”, full of “integrity”. Without Jose, they would have gladly sold the winning bidder the watch and take the cash without an ounce of guilt. It’s because of people like Jose that made commoners know the BS that these people are doing behind the scenes.

Informing them “discretely”, so that they can swap parts and pretend like nothing happened?These people should be sent to jail for running a scam!

My thoughts

[77T]

Originally Posted by pereztroika

Nobody needs that so why bring it up here? The guy in question used to be friendly but after my recent Deep Sea Special article in which he wasn't mentioned with a single word, he turned on me. Turns out he was deeply involved in the sales of that watch and also peddlled the false "record-watch" narrative.

This is not the first time he insulted me in public. He is also someone who went around telling people that a UK dealer, who was a heroin addict back in the day, is a junkie, in an attempt to kill his business. I just gave him a taste of his own medicine.

Cheers
Jose

I understand Jose.
Your research is very respected.

Dispassionate analysis is superior to personal attacks.

Giving a "taste of his medicine" doesn't make you look better - it can drag you down to his level in some people's eyes.

Not a rant - sharing solely in the spirit of communication.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro