Latest Acidic Account of Auctions - by Jose/Perezcope

[TuRo]

https://perezcope.com/2024/04/19/whe...ther-beauties/

[tekno]

It’s unfortunate how corrupt the vintage watch world is. I see the posts of RPM and I often wonder if the watches are cobbled together, refinished to make them look like extreme perfect pieces.

He posted a photo of a Tudor recently that was wild, a stunning 1959 7928. Almost too good to be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[offrdmania]

It isnt just watches, this happens in the art and collector car world and we are now seeing it in the vintage baseball card world.

[Dench]

"More than an Oyster ‘Sotto’ it appears to be an Oyster ‘Rotto’ (broken). "

[Dr.Smellody]

Originally Posted by offrdmania

It isnt just watches, this happens in the art and collector car world and we are now seeing it in the vintage baseball card world.

And automotive. Anywhere there is an opportunity to deceive and make an easy buck or million.

[996marty]

You would think the auction houses should know better

[MrBlobby]

In terms of the Daytona can I ask if people have an issue with the item actually being sold or the description?

If an auction house or dealer is selling a gilt era Rolex with a matte dial do you think they need to be pointing out that the dial isn’t original to the watch or are they okay to describe it as an early 60s Rolex with a matte dial?

Where does responsibility on the buyer begin and end?

[rootbeer7]

Philippe has just posted on Instagram an ‘on one hand this and on the other that’. To summarise; apart from mine they’re all cobbled together as they’re old watches and it doesn’t matter as they’re all Rolex parts.

[Dom9]

Always interesting to read Jose's insights!

[1William]

Always interesting and concerning.

[subx]

there is no replacement for traceability when it comes to vintage.
Perezcope insigntful investigations is making us all very aware of it.

[MrBlobby]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

In terms of the Daytona can I ask if people have an issue with the item actually being sold or the description?

If an auction house or dealer is selling a gilt era Rolex with a matte dial do you think they need to be pointing out that the dial isn’t original to the watch or are they okay to describe it as an early 60s Rolex with a matte dial?

Where does responsibility on the buyer begin and end?

Does anyone want to answer my questions? I’m generally interested in what people think beyond auction houses are evil.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by tekno

It’s unfortunate how corrupt the vintage watch world is. I see the posts of RPM and I often wonder if the watches are cobbled together, refinished to make them look like extreme perfect pieces.

He posted a photo of a Tudor recently that was wild, a stunning 1959 7928. Almost too good to be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That one is an interesting one. Case is just about perfect and looks absolutely correct for 59. Particularly the crown guards. Have a very distinct shape on 59 only. Remember that thing I told you about the dials to not tell anyone else, I can see the same thing there which tells me the dial is legit and not relumed. I have not inspected the insert enough to tell if it is a correct long 5 red triangle or a regular long 5 where the triangle has been redded. Maybe I will do that one of these days.

Based on how great the case is, as well as something that was once pointed out to me by someone else, I suspect that one is not a MN watch which many of these are. A different fellow that I talk with a lot who was also on here, and a great fellow collector, has one of these in almost as nice condition but also not a MN.

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by linesiders

...Remember that thing I told you about the dials to not tell anyone else...

what!!! Is there something you're not telling us???

[rootbeer7]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

Does anyone want to answer my questions? I’m generally interested in what people think beyond auction houses are evil.

As long as there’s disclosure I don’t see the problem. Similar to older cars being up-spec’d as they get older; new wheels, interior refurb. I think the problem occurs when they’re listed as all original. Originally sold like that from the factory or all original parts put together.

[rootbeer7]

Originally Posted by linesiders

That one is an interesting one. Case is just about perfect and looks absolutely correct for 59. Particularly the crown guards. Have a very distinct shape on 59 only. Remember that thing I told you about the dials to not tell anyone else, I can see the same thing there which tells me the dial is legit and not relumed. I have not inspected the insert enough to tell if it is a correct long 5 red triangle or a regular long 5 where the triangle has been redded. Maybe I will do that one of these days.

Based on how great the case is, as well as something that was once pointed out to me by someone else, I suspect that one is not a MN watch which many of these are. A different fellow that I talk with a lot who was also on here, and a great fellow collector, has one of these in almost as nice condition but also not a MN.

Remember that thing I told you about the dials to not tell anyone else
I’m intrigued.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

Remember that thing I told you about the dials to not tell anyone else
I’m intrigued.

Me rn ; )

[joli160]

So good to have people like Jose calling out the crooks

[MrBlobby]

I just don’t see this personally (in the case of the Daytona). There are no fake parts. It is probable that it isn’t in its original presentation. But are we really worried about people who are prepared to pay 900,000 euros for a watch. Do you expect an estate agent to run down a house they are selling?

What if the seller is of modest means and this just happens to be their main asset. How helpful is it to talk down a watch that may just have been developed over the years? If the dial was replaced for a damaged one?

I like Jose’s work but I don’t like how he calls something out and then everyone jumps up and down claiming various people to be crooks.

[scooba]

sold for 670 euros

[antrolexsub]

Originally Posted by scooba

sold for 670 euros

What a bargain

[MrBlobby]

871,000 including commission.

Looking in the brochure the watch was owned by an Italian business person/powerboat racer.

There is a real on Instagram where the auction house says that he bought the watch in the 1990s from an Italian jewellery shop. There is a photo of him wearing the watch with what looks like the dial that is currently in the watch. This photo doesn’t feel particularly recent (it might be).

We see from the auction result that the watch has a high value. What auction house wouldn’t want to sell it? How well would they be serving their client (the seller) if the were making a point a big point of the dial being swapped? Also if they made that comment in the small print (and they do say items are sold as is) then would that be fair?

If one of us was given this watch then how would we treat it? Would we swap the dial back out for an earlier dial? If we wanted it to be sold then how would we go about that?

[MrBlobby]

From the article:

“ The movement is the earliest version of Cal. 727 matching the 6264 ‘Lemon’ dial which makes it evident that whoever put this watch together was too lazy to remove the dial and just swapped the whole dial/movement combo from one case into another..”

Or maybe they weren’t trying to hide that the watch had been updated?

[MrBlobby]

Is this a similar watch at auction in 2020?
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auct...4k-yellow-gold

[pereztroika]

Originally Posted by MrBlobby

he bought the watch in the 1990s from an Italian jewellery shop.

Yes, from a known piece of work. The issue here is the refusal of the auction house to disclose the facts. They are still falsely claiming the watch is original.


Cheers
Jose

[rootbeer7]

Originally Posted by pereztroika

Yes, from a known piece of work. The issue here is the refusal of the auction house to disclose the facts. They are still falsely claiming the watch is original.


Cheers
Jose

And this is the real point. It is all Rolex parts. They are all correct parts for a Cosmograph model but, contrary to the description, which at close to $1m should be spot on, they are not original to the watch.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

As long as there’s disclosure I don’t see the problem. Similar to older cars being up-spec’d as they get older; new wheels, interior refurb. I think the problem occurs when they’re listed as all original. Originally sold like that from the factory or all original parts put together.

100% this.

[pk552502]

I believe "Caveat Emptor" still applies for used goods such as vintage cars and watches.

Caveat emptor translates to "let the buyer beware." It means that an individual buys at their own risk. Potential buyers are warned by the phrase to do their research and ask pointed questions of the seller. The seller isn't responsible for problems that the buyer encounters with the product after the sale.

When a good is sold "as is" then caveat emptor applies I believe. It places the onus on the buyer to perform due diligence before making a purchase.

Yes, I agree some of the stuff auction houses have done are misleading and may fall outside of this scope. But generally, I believe if you're spending that kind of money on a watch, the buyer is responsible to do some independent due diligence.

[Dan S]

It's all well and good to say that the buyer has responsibility to check authenticity or that it's ok as long as the seller doesn't explicitly lie. But the fact is that high end buyers bid in these high end auctions precisely because they believe that the auction houses have world-class experts on staff who have verified the watches. In fact, in the past I've seen many people using the fact that a watch was sold in one of these auctions as a de facto authentication.

Very few people (if any) have the data and knowledge to do the type of research that Jose does, and it's incredibly easy for high-end dealers/collectors/auctioneers to deliberately tamper with watches and cover up their actions. They deserve to be called out and criticized for deceptive behavior, including lying by omission. I talk with collectors all the time who are aware of bad behavior all over the vintage watch "industry" and this information is often passed around quietly between collectors. Few people are willing to talk publicly about it and name names.

[MrBlobby]

Originally Posted by pereztroika

Yes, from a known piece of work. The issue here is the refusal of the auction house to disclose the facts. They are still falsely claiming the watch is original.


Cheers
Jose

Thanks for the reply.

Is this the line you don’t like?

“ The yellow-gold case with a screw-down back is impeccably preserved in its original condition, with the spotlight naturally falling on the exceptionally well-preserved Paul Newman Lemon dial.”

And perhaps feel that it could have read something like “the dial and movement may have been replaced before the current ownership”? But note they are talking about the case being original rather than the whole preservation?

You’ve then pointed out inconsistencies to the auction house and they haven’t updated the listing or are taking a different view (either mistakenly, deliberately or with some other knowledge)? And this perhaps is the second issue with them?

But let’s say hypothetically they had extra knowledge that you weren’t aware of then why should they have to explain to someone their position verses saying nothing or that if you don’t like the presentation then don’t bid on it?

Is any of this option rather than something we can know with certainty? And yet they are probably ignoring conventional understanding.

For example consider the space dwellers which I also think didn’t exist. Given that explorers weren’t flying off the shelves couldn’t it be possible that these space dweller dials ended up in cases that were already at retailers as part of some promotion. That could explain a range of case numbers? Together with loose dials that ended up in various cases. I’m not saying this is what happened just that there are other possibilities out there.

I don’t want to sound like I disagree with you as I don’t. I’m just raising questions rather than jumping on the bandwagon.