Well, I have attempted to add content here and
discussion of interest to others that own 1675 references. It now seems the dominant tone is a fixation on the absence of publicly shared or proclaimed family documentation, such that the prevailing view is this watch isn't or won't be credentialed to an actual buyer. I prefer to give benefit of the doubt as a bystander, that some level of documentation to support the price will be made to an actual buyer.
It doesn't seem anyone on this current forum discussion is a qualified and interested party, so let's just see what develops.
I think it would be interesting to have another thread to discuss the various 1675 matte dial variations and bracelets. But honestly, that is an extreme example of thread-drift and not really appropriate. This thread is about a particular watch.
You have made a few posts now suggesting that somehow you are more qualified to offer your opinions about this watch because you have a 1675, and you even (irrelevantly) posted a photo of it. In the post I quoted above (see boldface that I added) and in previous posts, you insinuate that people engaged in this thread who don't agree with you are unqualified because they don't own 1675s. You obviously haven't been around here very long and apparently you have no idea what watches we own (and have owned in the past). There are many, many owners of vintage Rolex on the forum. We just don't feel the childish need to post photos of our watches in this thread. You're truly making a fool of yourself with those comments, and you will feel like an idiot as you gradually peruse the various threads where watches are posted.
You would like to assume that something will be provided to a buyer even though it's not mentioned in the listing. That's not logical ... just blind hope that is completely at odds with what the seller has actually posted. When you buy something, what you see is what you get.
Documentation made public or not, for myself I simply use basic logic. Mr. Wind didn't just start dealing in watches last week. Logic dictates he would only make such a declaration that the watch was owned by the president of Mexico if it was true. It would be illogical to think the dealer would risk throwing away his career for the potential amount of premium to be gained. For me I would bet the farm this watch history is legit.
For the record, I agree with this, and in my posts I have been very careful to discuss the documentation solely in the context of value, not doubting the actual provenance at all. For the same reason as you, I do tend to believe that the watch was owned by the President and sold at a pawn shop by a family member.
However, as you are well aware, for those thinking logically about buying a watch, the presence or absence of documentation does have a major influence on value when half of the value is supposedly in the provenance, and nobody but
@993watch seems to think that this watch is going to come with written documentation of ownership. I think this is totally fair game for discussion. Would you pay the same amount for a watch with provenance that is based solely on the word of a trusted seller, as for a watch with written documentation of provenance (e.g. if this watch had a service receipt with the President's name and the watch's serial number)? For me, there is a difference in value that can be significant, depending on the importance of the provenance.
Frankly, I've been in this position on several occasions, where I firmly believed in how a watch was being represented to me - previous owner, military issue, etc., but the provenance lacked explicit documentation. In those cases, I valued the watch as if the provenance was absent, and usually was able to buy it for that price. People generally understand that if they don't have proof, they can't charge a premium.
