Strange Daytona at auction on Sotheby´s

[erling]

Spotted this Daytona at auction at Sotheby´s.
What do you think of the second hands (at 9'oclock). There are three small second hands there and the minute hand is double.
What are your thoughts about this?
Is this to be trusted or just ordinary mistake?
Here is a link to the auction:
https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions...v0sm76C5LqKyYQ

[Jona]

Geez! I want some more details on what was done to it. I think anyone would feel the same before bidding on that.

[mcnealstash]

Not normally a fan of yellow gold, but this thing is clean.

[Devildog]

I think whoever at Sotheby's is responsible for the image editing needs shot.

Its a bad photoshop (or similar) to get the hands at "Rolex time"

The second picture on the website is perfectly normal

[REFZ]

On the other picture on the Sothebys website the watch looks normal.

[Jona]

Aha. Didn't notice that.

[Chadridv]

yeah bad photoshop, or rather bad publication editor that didn't catch it on the way out. Pretty terrible.

[themast]

Originally Posted by Chadridv

yeah bad photoshop, or rather bad publication editor that didn't catch it on the way out. Pretty terrible.

Also raises question on the actual conditions of the watch.

[othertbone]

Hmmmm, what else could they have cleaned up on the other photo?

[Dr.Stu]

Am I the only one here who thinks that Sotheby's Photoshopping an auction item (in this case a watch) for their auction catalog(ue) is absolutely outrageous? Isn't it fraudulent?
Is it legal?

Anyone think they may have "tweaked" the color of the "porcelain" dial? Moved the "Cosmograph" down part of a mm or so? (Let's assume they didn't Photoshop the inverted 6.)

Bidders are always strongly encouraged to inspect auction items in person, but with phone & internet bidding from all over the world, sometimes that is not possible and people often rely on on-line catalog photos & descriptions very heavily.

In this case it is a watch, but doesn't this really call into question photos of ALL of Sotheby's auction items? I mean perfect lighting and professional photography is one thing, but out-and-out Photoshopping, I think, is outrageous.

When I scroll through their auction lots on-line (and I do), l I just assume(d) that the picture I am looking at is an actual un-photoshopped picture of the item up for sale. Guess that's not necessarily the case (even with Sotheby's?), and I'm pretty surprised (if you can't tell).

[exador]

Christie’s got caught pulling this stunt last year.

http://www.onthedash.com/christies-2...perrera-shame/

[77T]

There is something that snarls me about auction houses faking their pictures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dr.Stu]

Originally Posted by exador

Christie’s got caught pulling this stunt last year.

http://www.onthedash.com/christies-2...perrera-shame/

Hadn't seen that one, thanks.

I guess even with "buying the seller" (even if it's a reputable one) it's still got to be caveat emptor.

[BigAppleBill]

Relax. It looks like a slip up that wasn’t caught by the catalog editor. When items are photographed for these catalogs, the photographer typically takes three or more photos of the object of varying focal depths. A computer program then automatically layers the focal planes from each photo together so that the entire object is in focus.

If there was only one photo taken per item, then maybe the bezel would be perfectly in focus, but the bracelet would be out of focus. By layering several photos everything appears in focus. The three hands shown in the 9 o’clock subdial are a result of three photos taken while the movement was running. In this case they should have used photoshop to eliminate the extra two “ghost hands” in the subdial. Similarly the minute hand appears doubled because it moved from one layered photo to the next. If you check out the additional photo provided, you will see the correct condition of the piece.

This is merely a small glitch compared to the recent Sotheby’s disastrous vintage car auction:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...ion-snafu.html

[Topspin14m]

Funny they use the term “Batgirl”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[offrdmania]

If you zoom in on it, its just over exposed. Its the same second hand but in multiple positions

[Dr.Stu]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBill

Relax. It looks like a slip up that wasn’t caught by the catalog editor. When items are photographed for these catalogs, the photographer typically takes three or more photos of the object of varying focal depths. A computer program then automatically layers the focal planes from each photo together so that the entire object is in focus.

If there was only one photo taken per item, then maybe the bezel would be perfectly in focus, but the bracelet would be out of focus. By layering several photos everything appears in focus. The three hands shown in the 9 o’clock subdial are a result of three photos taken while the movement was running. In this case they should have used photoshop to eliminate the extra two “ghost hands” in the subdial. Similarly the minute hand appears doubled because it moved from one layered photo to the next. If you check out the additional photo provided, you will see the correct condition of the piece.

This is merely a small glitch compared to the recent Sotheby’s disastrous vintage car auction:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...ion-snafu.html

Really appreciate the explanation, Bill. Makes more sense & makes me feel better that an auction house I trust has not been pulling the same stuff that one would expect of on-line scammers.

[Chadridv]

Originally Posted by themast

Also raises question on the actual conditions of the watch.

Yeah 100%, it draws bad attention. Even if they used photoshop to innocently remove dust located on the outside of the crystal, it just draws attention that the images are digitally retouched.