1675 previously owned by President of Mexico.

If anything, the tone has become much more civil in this thread. The thread started with serious and wild accusations of misrepresentation and fraud, and I didn't agree with much of what was said, even if some of the details were interesting to us watch geeks. As the thread progressed, it became clear that virtually nobody agreed with the really strong accusations that had been made. However, that discussion DID bring out some interesting new information that fleshed out the chain of custody in an unexpected way. So strong accusations were made (changing the dial, etc.), generally rebutted, and then the ongoing conversation brought out new facts. So far, so good.

Then, the conversation turned more to a discussion of value, which is also fair game on OF. Before you started this distraction by saying that we weren't qualified to discuss the watch, we were talking about the presence and absence of documentation, and how that relates to value for a watch whose value depends strongly on provenance. I don't call that negative and I'm interested in people's opinions. For me, provenance without proof adds virtually no value, for obvious reasons (just think about future re-sale value). Usually provenance has the greatest value for family members, but they were the ones who took the watch to a pawn shop.