2913 FAP from Phillips – from swan to ugly duckling

no, I didn't, sorry

Here are some pictures for further discussion. Maybe with these macro shots, more 2913 bezel experts can weigh in. I believe @kox and @gemini4 are able to create some helpful collages based on these pics.


My personal experience with original Bakelite inserts are the specks of black being present within the white numerals of the insert font. Repros tend to have little to no black specks present within the white.





Albeit being radium, UV light test seems to suggest that the luminous material of the lolipop seconds hand as well as the bezel pip came from the same sources/were later matched, as they do not glow.

Yes, this is an interesting discussion on originality. I posted an example of this here: https://omegaforums.net/threads/thoughts-on-a-145-012-67.65807/

The point of my post was to show that most were very impressed with the "correct" 145.012-67 until they heard what the restoration entailed. Ignorance is bliss though and if my watch had been sold without any traceable history, I'm sure the buyer would be delighted in this excellent condition Speedy. Should we be disappointed as soon as we hear that there has been a lot of work to get the watch back into a "correct" state if it only entailed genuine and correct parts? I know I'm very happy with my Speedy and maybe we are under-appreciating the art of finding the correct parts and restoring a watch to its former glory.

Maybe we should add a disclosure to every sale: The entire history of this watch is not known, parts could have been replaced with period-correct parts!

IMHO this should be now elevated to a discussion on ethics which is where I think the lines of distinction maybe safely drawn
Full disclosure should be mandatory and differentiation’s should be drawn between repair ,restoration ,coeval replacement ,modern reproduction etc etc

Under those circumstances no complaints can arise
Unquestionably the scholarship shown by Kox is of the highest order and the experience of the Davidoff’s cannot be doubted
The problem is the lack of transparency and the potential for unethical behaviour amongst certain auction houses

I have pointed out quite clear examples of what can only be called ruined watches to more than one auction house and have been met with blank indifference I therefore agree with Sacha in that if a member sees transgressive behaviours by an auction house he should draw it to the auction houses attention PRIOR to the auction and advert to it in the forums and elsewhere if the auction house cannot give a clear undertaking to rectify the watch description

Kox, superb thread! Many thanks for your detective work!

Cheers from Switzerland
Richard

You get into some pretty murky territory when you talk about "original". To me original means totally as per it left the factory. No parts replaced. Now, does anyone expect a 60+ year old watch that has been maintained with any degree care of to be completely original? There may be examples that were bought, put in drawers and recently unearthed, but most watches will have been worn, used, probably serviced with some parts replaced if they were consumables like oils and gaskets or potentially mainsprings or other parts of the mechanism that are prone to wear.

I don't expect the average watch to have a detailed history either, especially if it has passed through the hands of various owners. I think possibly that the best we can expect is that an "expert" will be able to say that a watch appears to be in "factory original condition" - that is, all the parts appear to be of the correct OEM make and pattern/type for the date of the watches manufacture. However, if they make statements that go beyond this, and it becomes clear that their statements are provably false, then they should be held to account.

Hi Sacha @DB1983
thanks for the thoughtful response. Since I started this, I'll better comment on your observations. I haven't seen any signs of crossfire before you wrote and I'm really not interested in that. I might have strong or harsh opions on the matter, but I really can't see much unfairness in my post or wrong facts for that matter and I still stand by what I posted.
I do respect your name and business, your knowledge and especially that you have had the watch in hand. I don't know what your role in this exactly is and it is not my business to question. But upon further research I can now see that you have had this very watch for sale after the #3 version sold here on OF. So you clearly should know something about it 😉 Anyway, allow me to answer/comment on some of your input.

I didn't say that the current bezel inlay is fake, but nicely redone. It was when the watch was last for sale here on OF (#3) that the bezel had fake issues. I respect your opinion on this, but I still think the bezel is redone, at least partly. @SgWatchBaron posted better pictures send from Phillips and I have made a quick compare shot below with one of my original inlays (auction one is on the left side), to judge the fonts. I think you can clearly see the differences. Fonts doesn't have the exact correct shape, and are to thin. Look especially at the shape of 2, 4 and 5. The bakelite inlay shape is also not concave enough/overfilled and there are clear traces of rework to the bakelite itself. I don't jump to conclusions, but offer my informed opinion, which allways is acceptable to me!



I didn't state otherwise. I said that the auction text states that it is a cal. 501 17jewels, which doesn't exist! The 2913 501's had either 19 or 20 jewels. Only a few of the very early 2913s had cal 501 19jewels. Haven't seen any FAPs with 19jewels. The us cal 500 version had 17 jewels. Since there are no movement shots in the auction, it's hard to tell if it's just a typo or something had been exchanged, like the rotor with the jewel engraving 😒. I stated that the old sales thread showed the movement and it was then a 19jewel version rotor. But now I found the DB1983 version and the matching pictures...and the rotor and add now says 20Jewels. Yes, now all "correct" then? But again something new that has been exchanged, not mentioned and not authentic.



Yes, perhaps franken is harsh and it was mostly aimed at the first seller and the transformation between #1 to #3. And I also said that as long as parts are all correct in regards to reference and serial, most would be ok with that IF disclosed upon selling. It's here we seems to really disagree. It's one thing if a collector does it to make a piece more correct for his own enjoyment (I have done that myself!), but it's another thing when it's done to enhance the watch for sale...and especially when you know it and it isn't disclosed 👎 Which IMO is the case with this one, somewhere between the sellers. What did you do to the watch when is was in your possession? In your add it only says that the lollipop sec hand was relumed.

Could you please point me to the variables that are not identified or ignored by me? You must know since you owned/sold this watch in between the mentioned sales.
I really don't like your not so hidden accusations towards my motives. I'm not one of the big shots, I don't have connections to Omega HQ, I don't always follow the auctions live (this one I first checked after it closed!), I don't bid on those since I don't have the means. I very very rarely sell watches. I have a range of SM300s and others that I collected when prices were more "reasonable". I'm a collector and have researched Omega sportwatches for years and especially SM300's. For my own pleasure. I'm not a professional nor does I state that I'm an expert. Since the SM300s are some of the most faked and frankened watches outthere, I needed to know all the correct details years ago, so I researched the hell out of them on my own and still do. That why I price authenticity so high. I share when I find something out of the ordinary or something that I think hasen't been covered yet and can help others. That's my reason for posting this!. And I DON'T like when something is presented as something its not, which admittedly was more on the first seller. But I now think you might have played a part, willing or unwilling, in vetting this in the end. Sorry to say.

The watch looks good now, but it's still a black swan - to me anyway.

@kox , correct me if I am wrong, but the Phillips bezel font does not look like an Aldo either, where I believe the numeral font is much more in line with an original?

Agree, not the later years Aldo work anyway. I don't think this is his work, since his are done stripped from the ground, new "bakelit" applied smooth and painted numbers last. The Philllips one have had the bakelite partly redone/patched then painted numbers on top. Perhaps that's why the numbers are not quite even proportioned like Aldo's. But I have seen worse work. Below is the Phillips one with a problem area highlighted.

Very simple to me- @kox analyzed the watch and supported his claims that it was heavily doctored/put together piece.
Phillips said it was original. Can a heavily "put together" watch be original? I don't think so- The definition of "original".

Is it a nice piece- one that I would like to have? yes. Would it be good for buyers if the seller would divulge the provenance - I would think buyers everywhere would all say 'yes!'. But that is not the world we live in - in this business, or any other for that matter. It's always caveat emptor, and that was the point of @kox post - at least to me.

Or a prototype...