The thing I was referring to is the misleading description of the watch and not the picture.............

 

Epic Thread Drift

 

Still to soon though. I'm still waiting for comments from "affected" parties.

 

Thanks, bro. I did actually pick that up on my own.

 

The general probably only flew on weekends to impress some lady!

 

Well said William.
I hope Sacha is not offended by possible perceived criticism, it is only the "hurly burly" of a lot of very informed guys . Everybody knows a bit some more than others but when it is all collated and combined into a consensus it becomes a powerful opinion.
I enjoy Sacha's posts and hope he continues, give him his due not many dealer's would dare to enter this cauldron of combined knowledge.

 

I agree, it happened to me and the auction house gave me 1005 return. I would definitely return it.

 

Great research, this is why OF is number 1 in my mind...

 

prefer the "Mad Dog"

just piling on....

 

I guess this whole thread underlines the importance of "caveat emptor", it is easy to be seduced by the look of a particular watch or by believing that what is being offered represents particular value for money. There appears to be a consensus on OF that a watch can be valuable, rare and desirable even if all the parts were not original to that specific watch. So, a significant part of the question is to what extent is it right to rely on a description and if that description is being provided by an apparent expert should it carry more weight?

I consider myself to be a relative novice but even I can spot many watches that are offered for sale that are obviously incorrect (wrong hands, bezel etc etc) and yet that carry a significant price tag. Eventually, someone must buy these watches possibly lured in by impressive photographs and a persuasive description but ultimately some responsibility must also be borne by the buyer too. If someone is selling a watch ( or anything else come to) that as part of their business then the relationship between them and the buyer is naturally based on the transaction and nothing else. I would naturally be more wary of someone that is selling for profit than someone that might be sourcing a watch on my behalf even if I am reminded of the cases where celebrities have sued people that have sourced watches for them when they have found that the watches had a problem.

This thread has certainly reminded me that:

1) I know a lot less than I think
2) You can never have enough information, insight and opinion
2) I should not let my heart rule my head

 

so this was an interesting post. . .

https://www.instagram.com/p/BbxsaZbF7wR/?taken-by=garyg_1

 

huh. taken down. even more interesting. . .the plot thickens

 

What’s the pic of?

 

it was a post pointing out issues with a patek 2499 that sold at philips for like 2.9mm CHF. post now deleted. . .very very interesting and i wonder what happened to it

 

Sounded like it was from the guy who bought it too, right?

 

post was from gary_g who writes for one of these watch blogs. i have no idea who bought it. but why would it come down without a trace?

 

Okay I tried to look for the deleted post but failed. I did see the original post, and one of the major points was that the marker at the 9 o'clock was off center with the painted mark? It was couple millimeters lower.

 

The date subdial also overprinted the main minutes track. It looked like a poor redial to my inexperienced eyes

 

Nowadays, what can you expect for 2.9M?