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
Edited by a mod Jul 10, 2021
Rman, khmt2, Dre and 6 others like this.