I saw this before it was taken down and totally agree with @abrod520. I can't imagine what the purchaser is feeling.
i don't know this gary_g. . he seems to spend crazy money on new watches. anyone have any theories on why this was posted and then taken down so quickly ?
He is the "Collector in Residence" for Q&P and one of the fellow contributors works at Phillips, and Gary is an active buyer from auctions. My guess, he was asked to take it down in exchange for a favorable quid-pro-quo. Additionally, as I was in the room when this 2499 was sold, I think it was two super-dealers who teamed up to buy it together. One of whom had a limited edition Patek that was re-sealed and being passed off as a single-sealed piece.
well, to be fair, I've been following this thread since it started and it proved useful for me. Just thought I'd shed some small light on the issue 0f the 2499, since it was brought up and it was a considerably high price.
I think I found it, this Patek 2499, got it from: http://rolexpassionreport.com/25228/geneva-watch-auction-report-november-2017/ For comparison, here is another Patek 2499 also from Rolex Passion Report but 2014. http://rolexpassionreport.com/14811/new-record-prices-for-rolex-may-2014-geneva-watch-auctions/
If you draw a line connecting the pivots of the second's subdial and the minute recorder's, you will see clearly that the whole minute chapter ring is off by a large margin (as well as the second chapter ring). The hour markers are fine.
You have to be at least a bit careful with drawing lines like this. It would only really work correctly if the image was taken absolutely head-on to the watch face, and best with a reasonable distance between the lens and the dial. In this case it's clearly at an angle, so the position of the actual dial-centre will be somewhere down and to the left of the estimated position (which is taken from a higher plane than the dial). Using the correct dial-centre would make the problems at 9 and 7 both seem less, but I would guess there is still mis-alignment.
agree, but 9 is still waaayy off regardless. 7 i could put down (without seeing a dead on picture as you state) to a bad photo angle.
At the specific camera angle of this image, the perspective effect is reducing the off-alignment of the minute chapter ring compared to the hour marker at 9 o'clock. It's actually to the opposite effect of what you thought.
Yes, that's it - good searching. The 4, 7 and 9 markers are visibly misaligned, and note the overprinting of the 15 on the calendar subdial with the 30 of the minutes track. On the genuine example, those numbers come close and may contact one another, but certainly don't intersect. From my very limited knowledge of Patek Philippe, their quality controls are way stricter than this
I believe that the process begins with the seller deciding to sell, and it is their responsibility to research the watch to the best of their ability and openly furnish all information for the buyer. I believe it shouldn't be buyer beware, but buyer be told. I can understand people going to auction houses in order to get the correct value, because auctioneers can provide adequate publicity and advertisement for the item being sold. And it is in advertising the watch that auctioneers should be very careful. They should be able to stand over what they claim on their brochure or sales list. We are currently considering selling a Seamaster 300 (1965) https://omegaforums.net/threads/new-photos-of-seamaster-300.66904/ . We have received several private inquiries through email relating to this watch and we are very grateful for that interest. However, we want to do as much research on the watch as possible in order to be as transparent and open with any potential buyer as possible.
