In today's news...buyer places too much confidence in seller

[soundserious]

Bottom line is that you cannot take people on good faith if they have a financial interest in the outcome. The unspoken issue is how long is a seller liable for a misrepresented watch. A week? A month? Ten years? The answer when it comes to this stratosphere of collecting seems to be the latter.

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by janice&fred

yawn...you do more about faces than a ballerina. you claim not to be taking sides yet you present opinions of watches by others as if they prove James is guilty. since you admit to not personally knowing either party then why not just wait and see what happens? you seem to be trying the case here in this forum. the fact you seem to clutch onto that most everyone will refute is that this latest drama will have an adverse effect on our hobby and value of watches. this suit is far from the first rodeo on this type of thing and it won't mean a damn thing no matter what the outcome.

Besides the John Mayer v. Robert Maron; Rolex v. Melrose.com; and Rolex v. Meece, what other cases have there been like this? It's an interesting topic to me. Here is a link about the Meece case. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1281217.html

[janice&fred]

Originally Posted by marcusjcw21

Besides the John Mayer v. Robert Maron; Rolex v. Melrose.com; and Rolex v. Meece, what other cases have there been like this? It's an interesting topic to me. Here is a link about the Meece case. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1281217.html

there is nothing wrong with one being interested, but you in a previous post volunteering to expose scammers to save this hobby suggests you are taking a very unhealthy attitude towards this. you are confrontational and demanding, and your replies to me come off as some sort of interrogation and you should understand no one likes being interrogated when this is supposed to be a hobby site. the fact is you know nothing more about this situation than any other reader so perhaps take a breather and realize you are not going to solve this or anything else by googling the topic and hunting for tidbits in other forums.

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by janice&fred

there is nothing wrong with one being interested, but you in a previous post volunteering to expose scammers to save this hobby suggests you are taking a very unhealthy attitude towards this. you are confrontational and demanding, and your replies to me come off as some sort of interrogation and you should understand no one likes being interrogated when this is supposed to be a hobby site. the fact is you know nothing more about this situation than any other reader so perhaps take a breather and realize you are not going to solve this or anything else by googling the topic and hunting for tidbits in other forums.

How can you possibly believe that my point of view is "unhealthy?" There is a lawsuit in which James Dowling is accused by a buyer for committing some serious acts. I would point out that you seem to be blindly on his side because you have interacted with him in the past. I believe you mentioned that you have done a number of transactions with him. Does this mean that you have skin in the game in that if he is not exonerated, you may have watches that are devalued or clients might be questioning you because you told them that you acquired a piece from James Dowling? Just curious why you are so pro James Dowling after having read the lawsuit and have likely seen the other recent comments that indicate possible dodgy dealings with James Dowling and his watches.

My position is that I want to be proactive in getting fakes off of the market. This has nothing to do with James Dowling. I want to be a champion of this cause. With regards to James Dowling, I have asserted the possibility that others could have tampered with the items. Conversely, I suggested a "what if" the items were documented with photos and videos, and you jumped on my butt for that. I have provided thoughts that would be beneficial and detrimental to both sides of this lawsuit. My position has been pretty neutral. But I am not naive enough to take the word of username: janice&fred whom I've never met over what I've read that was put together as part of a lawsuit. Why should I trust anything you have to say? I don't know anything about you... other than you seem to be a big advocate for James Dowling who is currently facing a serious threat to his reputation that could have been avoided had he simply refunded the buyer's money after the watches "went up in value." What did he have to lose by giving a refund?

[eco8gator]

Hey guys calm down a bit...the mods will shut down this interesting discussion if you get to rowdy...

BTW, I wonder if this was the 6538 watch that was purchased...right out of JD's book. BTW, "The Best of Time Rolex Wristwatches" is a good read.

[marcusjcw21]

Originally Posted by eco8gator

Hey guys calm down a bit...the mods will shut down this interesting discussion if you get to rowdy...

BTW, I wonder if this was the 6538 watch that was purchased...right out of JD's book. BTW, "The Best of Time Rolex Wristwatches" is a good read.

I'm not completely sure, but I feel like I saw a 6538 without the explorer dial. Someone had posted pics of what they thought was it. But I honestly don't know that I have seen photos that are verified as being any of the watches in question.

[janice&fred]

you say you "want to be a champion of this cause".

you got to be kidding. you mention "my clients". i have no clients and certainly never sold a watch to anyone claiming i bought it from James. however he has transacted with countless watches with us and our family for years. do your homework before you make a bigger fool out of yourself.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by marcusjcw21

...

Why should I trust anything you have to say? I don't know anything about you...?

We know Janice&Fred has been here for about 6 years to your 6 minutes,
And it appears that you are speculating quite a bit.

You have made some good points but no one here is on trial and nothing is under oath.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by marcusjcw21

How can you possibly believe that my point of view is "unhealthy?" There is a lawsuit in which James Dowling is accused by a buyer for committing some serious acts. I would point out that you seem to be blindly on his side because you have interacted with him in the past. I believe you mentioned that you have done a number of transactions with him. Does this mean that you have skin in the game in that if he is not exonerated, you may have watches that are devalued or clients might be questioning you because you told them that you acquired a piece from James Dowling? Just curious why you are so pro James Dowling after having read the lawsuit and have likely seen the other recent comments that indicate possible dodgy dealings with James Dowling and his watches.

My position is that I want to be proactive in getting fakes off of the market. This has nothing to do with James Dowling. I want to be a champion of this cause. With regards to James Dowling, I have asserted the possibility that others could have tampered with the items. Conversely, I suggested a "what if" the items were documented with photos and videos, and you jumped on my butt for that. I have provided thoughts that would be beneficial and detrimental to both sides of this lawsuit. My position has been pretty neutral. But I am not naive enough to take the word of username: janice&fred whom I've never met over what I've read that was put together as part of a lawsuit. Why should I trust anything you have to say? I don't know anything about you... other than you seem to be a big advocate for James Dowling who is currently facing a serious threat to his reputation that could have been avoided had he simply refunded the buyer's money after the watches "went up in value." What did he have to lose by giving a refund?

You're a noob and your posts come off as hysteric. Chill out. I've interacted with James a few times and I have no idea what's going on - why? Not because I didn't read some stuff posted on another site. More likely because I, myself, lack the information required to form a reasoned opinion.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

Dat time doh - who knows what the hell happened to that watch before the first inspection?

My comment was addressing the notion originally put forth by some that suggested because the guy bringing the lawsuit has money then he must be merely a disgruntled amateur engaging in a meritless action. The specifics found in the suit seem to put that notion to bed, the lesson being don't base opinions on superficial news reporting.

From what I gather, the guy bought an expensive watch from a well-known and "trusted" seller who attested/s to this rare piece's genuine condition and worth. A few years later the buyer goes to re-sell/have it auctioned and the Auction House's world-renowned expert knocks it back due to discrepancies with regards to it's authenticity, and then another world-renowned expert adds even more specifics as to what's wrong with the watch he was sold.

Suddenly faced with that same situation and with 2 world-renowned, named Rolex experts (who also stake their reputations on what they find) asserting your watch is bogus, without some sort of return/buy back by the original seller I doubt there isn't anyone here...expert, amateur, and everyone in between....that wouldn't seek some sort of legal action. If had to bet, I'm sure the buyer (like any other) would have much rather found out his watch had no problems and was good to go for sale/auction.

No doubt the passage of time aspect will be addressed in court with a focus on whether everything about the watch now, particularly those elements the experts have deemed to be counterfeit or mis-represented, matches what was originally sold to him.

Many of the irregular components (dial, hands, case) cited by the named experts in the suit lend themselves to a detailed visual comparison if h-res photos exist from the time of sale. Vintage pieces have identifying marks of wear and/or deterioration and I'd be very surprised if photos like that weren't taken for sale and/or insurance purposes at that time and could now be used to help establish whether the components are indeed the same, or not.

Staying tuned.

[janice&fred]

Originally Posted by CRM114

My comment was addressing the notion originally put forth by some that suggested because the guy bringing the lawsuit has money then he must be merely a disgruntled amateur engaging in a meritless action.

From what I gather, the guy bought an expensive watch from a well-known and "trusted" seller who attested/s to this rare piece's genuine condition and worth. A few years later the buyer goes to re-sell/have it auctioned and the Auction House's world-renowned expert knocks it back due to discrepancies with regards to it's authenticity, and then another world-renowned expert adds even more specifics as to what's wrong with the watch he was sold.

Suddenly faced with that same situation and with 2 word-renowned, named Rolex experts (who also stake their reputations on what they find) asserting your watch is bogus, without some sort of return/buy back by the original seller I doubt there isn't anyone here...expert, amateur, and everyone in between....that wouldn't seek some sort of legal action.

No doubt the passage of time aspect will be addressed in court with a focus on whether everything about the watch now, particularly those elements the experts have deemed to be counterfeit or mis-represented, matches what was originally sold to him.

Many of the irregular components (dial, hands, case) cited by the named experts in the suit lend themselves to a detailed visual comparison if h-res photos exist from the time of sale. Vintage pieces have identifying marks of wear and/or deterioration and I'd be very surprised if photos like that weren't taken for sale and/or insurance purposes at that time and could now be used to help establish whether the components are indeed the same, or not.

Staying tuned.

everything you said makes perfect sense. the vintage watch biz is a mine field...so much so that it very often is very difficult to establish whether watches and/or components are original and genuine on the say-so of one, two or three different experts. it would almost take a consensus of a panel of experts to vote on and make their best call in this particular dispute, and only if there is 100% proof positive that the questioned watches are still in as-purchased condition. any judge will be faced with a huge amount of dispute to wade thru when experts start making judgement calls on this. just a quick perusal of other watch forums' discussions in threads on a particular dial or case will underline this difficulty. of course the choice of "experts" to give opinions on this is also going to be problematic as more than likely any expert in this field is also a flipper of some sort with commercial interests in the outcome.

it could very well be there will not be any "staying tuned" as it's more likely than not that both parties will clam up and eventually settle this in private. i can't imagine the buyer or seller giving interviews on this and considering the geographic distance between the parties the chances of this getting in front of a jury is pretty slim.

in regard to the newbie in this thread that i had differences of opinion with, i admire your enthusiasm for this hobby and it's not my intention to kill your spirit. let's both chill and get back to other watch related topics and threads where the premise isn't so controversial or unsettling

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by CRM114

No doubt the passage of time aspect will be addressed in court with a focus on whether everything about the watch now, particularly those elements the experts have deemed to be counterfeit or mis-represented, matches what was originally sold to him.

Exactly my point.

[EDL7]

I've been in business for a long long time..not the watch business though..but let me tell you...people that you have trusted in business for a long time can suddenly change...in a heartbeat...people that you thought were cool and straight up for years...esp when they are thinking of leaving the business..or suddenly have money problems..or... just get greedy...or ...esp if they say...trust me...then run as fast as you can..no matter how long you have dealt with them..

[jeff hess]

I have watched with great interest this thread. And have studiously avoided making a comment.

AT the fear of getting flamed, let me add a few things.

When James and I wrote the book, we did it for different reasons. The publisher sought us out and asked us to write it. I was publishing a monthly magazine (a "zine" as they used to call it.. a glorified 12 page pamphlet) dedicated to Vintage Rolex and to a lesser extent, Pateks. James was making a lot of inroads in the UK.

We were flattered. (we found out thru the grapevine that two other Euro/American pairings had been asked first and they bowed out due to fear of Rolexes mighty and well know litigation department.

We signed on anyway, with me insisting that it be called "Unauthorized History". AFter 2.5 years of hard work, the book almost did not get printed. The publisher loved James' pick for a title "The Best of Time" but left off of the cover "Unauthorized History".

We were very careful about authenticity and we discarded many people watches that were offered to use as we felt they might be sketchy. I negotiated with Christies and Sotheby's to use pics of watches they had vetted and sold in their auctions.

I was RABID about making sure we only used the genuine article. James was double.

James had a knack for chasing down rare watches. We were both collectors and dealers. With different selling styles. I bought and flipped quickly tons of watches for short profit often to collectors but more often to dealers. James preferred to keep them a while, romance them and sell them to serious collectors only.

James has a keen eye, a good heart and a solid reputation.

My "feeling" (I have not talked to James in over 6 months, since he had his heart attack) that this is a simple case of a retail customer being charged a retail price for a watch that is so scarce that even designating a ture "Retail price" would be daunting and perhaps even impossible.

Fair market Value is defined as "Willing seller, willing buyer, neither being under duress or time or monetary constraints".

If the guy feels he paid too much, well guess what? It happens. And proving that he "paid too much" is, as noted, difficult when only a few exist. Some might say they are priceless.

IF they prove to be fake (doubtful), I trust that James will make it good.

Jeff

Ask me about Bob Maron some time.... :)

[subtona]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

I have watched with great interest this thread. And have studiously avoided making a comment.

AT the fear of getting flamed, let me add a few things.

When James and I wrote the book, we did it for different reasons. The publisher sought us out and asked us to write it. I was publishing a monthly magazine (a "zine" as they used to call it.. a glorified 12 page pamphlet) dedicated to Vintage Rolex and to a lesser extent, Pateks. James was making a lot of inroads in the UK.

We were flattered. (we found out thru the grapevine that two other Euro/American pairings had been asked first and they bowed out due to fear of Rolexes mighty and well know litigation department.

We signed on anyway, with me insisting that it be called "Unauthorized History". AFter 2.5 years of hard work, the book almost did not get printed. The publisher loved James' pick for a title "The Best of Time" but left off of the cover "Unauthorized History".

We were very careful about authenticity and we discarded many people watches that were offered to use as we felt they might be sketchy. I negotiated with Christies and Sotheby's to use pics of watches they had vetted and sold in their auctions.

I was RABID about making sure we only used the genuine article. James was double.

James had a knack for chasing down rare watches. We were both collectors and dealers. With different selling styles. I bought and flipped quickly tons of watches for short profit often to collectors but more often to dealers. James preferred to keep them a while, romance them and sell them to serious collectors only.

James has a keen eye, a good heart and a solid reputation.

My "feeling" (I have not talked to James in over 6 months, since he had his heart attack) that this is a simple case of a retail customer being charged a retail price for a watch that is so scarce that even designating a ture "Retail price" would be daunting and perhaps even impossible.

Fair market Value is defined as "Willing seller, willing buyer, neither being under duress or time or monetary constraints".

If the guy feels he paid too much, well guess what? It happens. And proving that he "paid too much" is, as noted, difficult when only a few exist. Some might say they are priceless.

IF they prove to be fake (doubtful), I trust that James will make it good.

Jeff

Ask me about Bob Maron some time.... :)

Thanks very much for your insight Jeff.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

I have watched with great interest this thread. And have studiously avoided making a comment.

AT the fear of getting flamed, let me add a few things.

When James and I wrote the book, we did it for different reasons. The publisher sought us out and asked us to write it. I was publishing a monthly magazine (a "zine" as they used to call it.. a glorified 12 page pamphlet) dedicated to Vintage Rolex and to a lesser extent, Pateks. James was making a lot of inroads in the UK.

We were flattered. (we found out thru the grapevine that two other Euro/American pairings had been asked first and they bowed out due to fear of Rolexes mighty and well know litigation department.

We signed on anyway, with me insisting that it be called "Unauthorized History". AFter 2.5 years of hard work, the book almost did not get printed. The publisher loved James' pick for a title "The Best of Time" but left off of the cover "Unauthorized History".

We were very careful about authenticity and we discarded many people watches that were offered to use as we felt they might be sketchy. I negotiated with Christies and Sotheby's to use pics of watches they had vetted and sold in their auctions.

I was RABID about making sure we only used the genuine article. James was double.

James had a knack for chasing down rare watches. We were both collectors and dealers. With different selling styles. I bought and flipped quickly tons of watches for short profit often to collectors but more often to dealers. James preferred to keep them a while, romance them and sell them to serious collectors only.

James has a keen eye, a good heart and a solid reputation.

My "feeling" (I have not talked to James in over 6 months, since he had his heart attack) that this is a simple case of a retail customer being charged a retail price for a watch that is so scarce that even designating a ture "Retail price" would be daunting and perhaps even impossible.

Fair market Value is defined as "Willing seller, willing buyer, neither being under duress or time or monetary constraints".

If the guy feels he paid too much, well guess what? It happens. And proving that he "paid too much" is, as noted, difficult when only a few exist. Some might say they are priceless.

IF they prove to be fake (doubtful), I trust that James will make it good.

Jeff

Ask me about Bob Maron some time.... :)

The time is now, I'm asking.

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by MonBK

The time is now, I'm asking.

I was waiting for you

[travisb]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

I have watched with great interest this thread. And have studiously avoided making a comment.

AT the fear of getting flamed, let me add a few things.

When James and I wrote the book, we did it for different reasons. The publisher sought us out and asked us to write it. I was publishing a monthly magazine (a "zine" as they used to call it.. a glorified 12 page pamphlet) dedicated to Vintage Rolex and to a lesser extent, Pateks. James was making a lot of inroads in the UK.

We were flattered. (we found out thru the grapevine that two other Euro/American pairings had been asked first and they bowed out due to fear of Rolexes mighty and well know litigation department.

We signed on anyway, with me insisting that it be called "Unauthorized History". AFter 2.5 years of hard work, the book almost did not get printed. The publisher loved James' pick for a title "The Best of Time" but left off of the cover "Unauthorized History".

We were very careful about authenticity and we discarded many people watches that were offered to use as we felt they might be sketchy. I negotiated with Christies and Sotheby's to use pics of watches they had vetted and sold in their auctions.

I was RABID about making sure we only used the genuine article. James was double.

James had a knack for chasing down rare watches. We were both collectors and dealers. With different selling styles. I bought and flipped quickly tons of watches for short profit often to collectors but more often to dealers. James preferred to keep them a while, romance them and sell them to serious collectors only.

James has a keen eye, a good heart and a solid reputation.

My "feeling" (I have not talked to James in over 6 months, since he had his heart attack) that this is a simple case of a retail customer being charged a retail price for a watch that is so scarce that even designating a ture "Retail price" would be daunting and perhaps even impossible.

Fair market Value is defined as "Willing seller, willing buyer, neither being under duress or time or monetary constraints".

If the guy feels he paid too much, well guess what? It happens. And proving that he "paid too much" is, as noted, difficult when only a few exist. Some might say they are priceless.

IF they prove to be fake (doubtful), I trust that James will make it good.

Jeff

Ask me about Bob Maron some time.... :)

Thanks for your input Jeff. I was wondering if you might chime in when this thread started and I'm glad you did.
And yes, I'd love to hear about Bob!