- Posts
- 5,856
- Likes
- 16,756
gemini4
··Hoarder Of Speed et aliaOr a prototype...
Yes. Pristine digits on damaged\repaired Bakelite.
2913 FAP from Phillips – from swan to ugly duckling
Yes. Pristine digits on damaged\repaired Bakelite.
- Posts
- 1,294
- Likes
- 2,290
jhross98
·This is now... Bar none my thread of the year and I positively cannot wait for Sacha's reply tomorrow
Thank goodness for all the knowledge on these boards!
Thank goodness for all the knowledge on these boards!
- Posts
- 6,568
- Likes
- 21,256
M'Bob
·I positively cannot wait for Sacha's reply tomorrow
Despite his expertise, which is undeniable, and the fact that he handled the watch, the bezel is really a tough one to explain. Is it a prototype? No. A odd varient that Kox has never encountered? Highly unlikely. Most logical conclusion: I believe Kox and Gemini4 are correct - original underlying Bakelite, with refurbished numbers on top.
- Posts
- 2,678
- Likes
- 9,835
CajunTiger
·@CajunTiger has posted these pics a few times regarding the difference between an original, and Aldo restored, 2913 bezel. To me, the Phillips version appears to resemble neither.
Original Omega Bezel (Matches @kox ’s correct bezel)
Aldo restored bezel
I am no expert by any means...but I have carefully studied bezels for many years. I have commissioned Aldo on at least a half dozen occasions to produce bezels for my watches. I also own quite a few authentic bezels, so I have a large range of bezels to base my research on...I'll add a few comments you can take with a grain of salt.
1- IMO the only way to determine if a bezel is authentic is to examine it in person under a loupe. Looking at macro photos it is very difficult to determine if it is authentic or not. That being said with high quality macro images you can easily weed out MOST repro bezels. I say most because I have seen some new repro bezels lately that are quite scary good, I believe most of these are coming out of Germany...but I dont know for certain. I also know of at least four different people producing repro bezels and they have all been practicing and refining their work for several years now.
2- Within the authentic bezels I have personally seen several variations in the techniques. Although most have very similar traits.
3- Ive never seen an authentic bezel with the thin fonts seen on this bezel.
4- I am absolutely positive this bezel was not produced by Aldo. I am quite familiar with his work.
Based on the macro images posted above, it is my opinion that this bezel is not completely original...but refer to #1 above.
Edited:
- Posts
- 270
- Likes
- 970
BenjaminT
·Can't see the photos on the google cache of DBs site.
My fault or have they been removed in the meantime?
My fault or have they been removed in the meantime?
- Posts
- 95
- Likes
- 243
DB1983
·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.
Yes. The watch belonged to a friend/client, was listed shortly & delisted from our site upon request and ultimately ended up at the auction. Again, the wrong conclusions not based on fact, but rather speculation.
Also, and again, regarding the auction house, the estimate was more than fair at 15-25 and I haven’t heard anyone debate that. That is where their responsibility lies in my opinion. If anything was actually fake, this would have been a tragedy, yes, however this is not the case.
I also remain that all parts were original upon inspection. A refilled lollipop hand is pretty common on these models and hard to find one intact as most are empty.
I disagree on the bezel originality because I have seen the different refurbished ones, closely, and compared to original ones in our stock every chance I get. I have looked at the different comparisons on this thread and haven’t seen proof to back up what you call fake or refurbished. UV showed bakelite intact and not refurbished, printing and typography correct, convex inlay and matted surface from wear. Swapped, ok, but calling it fake is still wrong and unjust.
I got involved because I had thoroughly inspected it, but was surprised as I didn’t have the stages of history of the watch you posted as I just looked at it with fresh eyes. I think this thread calls into question the terminology we use and what amount of research we are subject to do before offering a watch for sale. Both are interesting, but need to find some common ground. When asked what do we know about the history of this watch, we generally don’t have much history as we buy from dealers, clients and at shows. We inspect physically and check serials with the Museum. An auction house typically vets thousands of watches for a single auction and little credit is given for the work they do. I have been going to auctions for years and I am extremely critical of their work and impact on the market, but in this case I felt they could not have known what you researched.
It’s a shame people latch on to the negative side of this so much more easily today rather than positive things going on around the vintage world. Especially seeing some beautiful watches from owners right here on this forum (thank you for sharing @gemini4 and @SgWatchBaron). If we want to kill the vintage market, why be part of it? I am happy doing what I love and following my passion in life.
Cheers,
Sacha
- Posts
- 491
- Likes
- 595
maxbelg
·..........I think this thread calls into question the terminology we use and what amount of research we are subject to do before offering a watch for sale.......It’s a shame people latch on to the negative side of this so much.........
Cheers,
Sacha
I have to agree with this. I do think we are reacting very negatively to watches which have been restored. This is a touchy subject and becomes more touchy the more expensive a watch is. Furthermore the question of how much research should be done prior to a sale is important.
I've said this before: Is ignorance really bliss? Is everybody happy ever after with a sale, as long as they believe that their 60 year old watch is all original, and very unhappy when they find out it has been restored? It's still the same watch in the same condition after all. I believe there should be more tolerance and even admiration for well-restored watches.
Of course this does not give anybody the right to deceive and claim it hasn't been restored, which is something else entirely. It is a very difficult thing to claim that a watch hasn't been restored and needs proof of this fact for decades which is usually not possible with most of these vintage watches.............
- Posts
- 5,018
- Likes
- 15,307
eugeneandresson
·I do think we are reacting very negatively to watches which have been restored.
I have no beef here, and am following this thread with great interest.
- Posts
- 491
- Likes
- 595
maxbelg
·...(context) at a record selling price, no restoration disclosure, described as "in most attractive and original condition" . Nobody is reacting negatively to restoring a watch.
I have no beef here, and am following this thread with great interest.
I agree fully that this watch should NOT have been described as original. I disagree that nobody is reacting negatively to restoring a watch. However there are hardly any of these vintage watches which can safely be described as original as most of the time we just don't know. As far as the record selling price goes, this makes no difference to me or do you think all would have been OK if it had sold cheaply?
- Posts
- 11,066
- Likes
- 19,470
Davidt
·Excellent work by @kox and I appreciate @DB1983 giving his side of the story.
I wholeheartedly agree that auction houses cannot perhaps be expected to go to the investigative lengths for all their watches like has been done here. However, I have two issues:
1. The estimate is irrelevant. If a watch is listed with an estimate of £1000 but has pictures and a description that suggest it's worth £100,000, the auction house cannot then say "well we expected it to sell for much less, so you've got to take our description with a pinch of salt, as we priced it for a below average example". They didn't price anything, it was put to an open auction for the market to decide.
2. Differing opinions on the bezel aside, this really boils down to the wording. If they had simply described it as having period correct parts in a given condition, there would be no issue. However, it was specifically described as being "preserved in most attractive and original condition". If an auction house is making this kind of claim, they should be able to reasonably back it up, such as a watch direct from the family, barn find, documented history etc. Otherwise, no such claims about originality should be made.
I wholeheartedly agree that auction houses cannot perhaps be expected to go to the investigative lengths for all their watches like has been done here. However, I have two issues:
1. The estimate is irrelevant. If a watch is listed with an estimate of £1000 but has pictures and a description that suggest it's worth £100,000, the auction house cannot then say "well we expected it to sell for much less, so you've got to take our description with a pinch of salt, as we priced it for a below average example". They didn't price anything, it was put to an open auction for the market to decide.
2. Differing opinions on the bezel aside, this really boils down to the wording. If they had simply described it as having period correct parts in a given condition, there would be no issue. However, it was specifically described as being "preserved in most attractive and original condition". If an auction house is making this kind of claim, they should be able to reasonably back it up, such as a watch direct from the family, barn find, documented history etc. Otherwise, no such claims about originality should be made.
Edited:
- Posts
- 5,018
- Likes
- 15,307
eugeneandresson
·I agree fully that this watch should NOT have been described as original. I disagree that nobody is reacting negatively to restoring a watch. However there are hardly any of these vintage watches which can safely be described as original as most of the time we just don't know. As far as the record selling price goes, this makes no difference to me or do you think all would have been OK if it had sold cheaply?
I don't believe my opinion counts here, I am merely a bystander who respects all of the parties involved in this discussion. But seeing as you ask : I believe the same as most folks -> its fine if it were disclosed this way / described for what it was, irrespective of the price. That's it.
- Posts
- 1,072
- Likes
- 1,480
Dgercp
·This post to me epitomizes the awesomeness of this forum becuase of it's intense focus on detail PLUS
the questions it raises about vetting watches and about definitions of authenticity.
Sacha and Roy are good guys in our vintage world. They are knowledgeable and honest. I respect Sacha coming
on here to express his views.
Kox to me is a hero, he has altered how I approach looking at a watch. He has contributed hugely to this community and we are all better for it.
I agree with Sacha that an auction house, or any mear mortal for that matter could be expected to investigate a watch whith the thoroughness of Kox, the effort was superhuman. BUT, I do not agree (as Sacha claims), that an auction house
should be off the hook just because they list a reasonable estimate. The auction house must vet it's offerings as best as reasonably possible and report that condition honestly. It often fails in this regard. It failed here.
I also find it hard to believe there remains any doubt that the bezel offered here is NOT original. Sacha, I would love to see some Macro's from some you have seen that you believe are original and match the font on this one.
In addition, I think it is very possible this dial was relumed based on the photo's in this post.
Disclaimer- I know less about these early Seamaster's than either Sacha or Kox know in their little pinky.
the questions it raises about vetting watches and about definitions of authenticity.
Sacha and Roy are good guys in our vintage world. They are knowledgeable and honest. I respect Sacha coming
on here to express his views.
Kox to me is a hero, he has altered how I approach looking at a watch. He has contributed hugely to this community and we are all better for it.
I agree with Sacha that an auction house, or any mear mortal for that matter could be expected to investigate a watch whith the thoroughness of Kox, the effort was superhuman. BUT, I do not agree (as Sacha claims), that an auction house
should be off the hook just because they list a reasonable estimate. The auction house must vet it's offerings as best as reasonably possible and report that condition honestly. It often fails in this regard. It failed here.
I also find it hard to believe there remains any doubt that the bezel offered here is NOT original. Sacha, I would love to see some Macro's from some you have seen that you believe are original and match the font on this one.
In addition, I think it is very possible this dial was relumed based on the photo's in this post.
Disclaimer- I know less about these early Seamaster's than either Sacha or Kox know in their little pinky.
Edited:
- Posts
- 491
- Likes
- 595
maxbelg
·.......................If they had simply described it as having period correct parts in a given condition, there would be no issue.....................
........ its fine if it were disclosed this way / described for what it was, irrespective of the price. That's it.
I agree with both Davidt and eugeneandresson on this.
My opinion certainly doesn't "count" either but I think this type of forum is all about the different opinions we share here, which is why I'm sharing this opinion 😀: This type of auction reinforces my personal beliefs that I shouldn't try to search for originality, because it can almost never be proven and sellers can mislead unknowingly or on purpose. We can then end up paying more than we would otherwise for "the knowledge of originality" and be disappointed when this turns out to be false. That's why I personally search for watches with overall coherance and all-original period-correct parts and beauty and am willing to pay for this but don't value "originality" too much and won't pay additionally for it.
- Posts
- 5,018
- Likes
- 15,307
- Posts
- 9,591
- Likes
- 27,591
ConElPueblo
·If we want to kill the vintage market, why be part of it? I am happy doing what I love and following my passion in life.
Cheers,
Sacha
I wouldn't mind killing the market. Having all the dealers and others who are a "part of it" going out of business and seeing values drop to the floor would be my biggest dream - why should I want prices going through the roof? Every year I see another reference I've researched move out of my reach financially, being faked, being put-together by profiteers wanting to wring all they can out of unsuspecting customers.
No, bring on the revolution, I say 😁
Also, on this specific item: If I was the one having spent that amount of money on a watch, I would be mad to learn just how the auction house interprets "preserved in most attractive and original condition". Luckily,I'd probably be able to afford lawyers.
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,294
- Likes
- 2,290
jhross98
·This post to me epitomizes the awesomeness of this forum becuase of it's intense focus on detail PLUS
the questions it raises about vetting watches and about definitions of authenticity.
Sacha and Roy are good guys in our vintage world. They are knowledgeable and honest. I respect Sacha coming
on here to express his views.
Kov to me is a hero, he has altered how I approach looking at a watch. He has contributed hugely to this community and we are all better for it.
I agree with Sacha that an auction house, or any mear mortal for that matter could be expected to investigate a watch whith the thoroughness of Kov, the effort was superhuman. BUT, I do not agree (as Sacha claims), that an auction house
should be off the hook just because they list a reasonable estimate. The auction house must vet it's offerings as best as reasonably possible and report that condition honestly. It often fails in this regard. It failed here.
I also find it hard to believe there remains any doubt that the bezel offered here is NOT original. Sacha, I would love to see some Macro's from some you have seen that you believe are original and match the font on this one.
In addition, I think it is very possible this dial was relumed based on the photo's in this post.
Disclaimer- I know less about these early Seamaster's than either Sacha or Kov know in their little pinky.
agree wholeheartedly with this. . .to me the open item is the bezel. we could all benefit from a definitive view on this bezel. or is it possible that the reproductions are becoming so good that even an expert cannot tell. i have had several world experts they can tell aldo bezels from the like. . are there now scary variants that cannot be distinguished and where does that leave us ?
- Posts
- 215
- Likes
- 918
PerJ
·Coming from collecting completely different watches this is unfortunately the reality today. Collectors want rare, perfect watches and sellers just give the market what the market wants. I feel fairly certain that most of us want that perfect barn find where everything checks out. Reality is very different.. There are probably tons of projects just waiting for that perfect dial, hand set or case. As there's so much money involved this is what we need to accept. Regardless how sad it is.
Today collectors and dealers speak about all matching patina on perfect examples. That this is the way to see if a watch is all original or put together. Personally I never understood why a perfect dial would require a perfect case or the other way around. Still you often seem to find these examples somehow. Some true and some.. well.. just put together. Most collectors and dealers know this but we are still shocked when watches like this appear on the market and gets caught. Not that we are stupid but perhaps we are a bit naive wanting that perfect piece.
I do not agree with Sacha above that we are hurting the vintage market while we react and discuss this. I think it is healthy to be open with what we see and talk about it. Sure it is not great for the community with all the cheating but on the other hand things will only get worse if we don't talk about it. As long as the demand side screams for top quality this is what we will get. In most cases the watches will already be prepared before it end up on auctions or at your favourite dealer.
I might be too cynical but I stopped thinking about my watches story. Let's not say I think all watches are projects but I would not pay extra for 'untouched and in perfect conditions'. I'd happily pay for top quality but I pay for the watch as it is. Not the feeling it is all original and untouched. Unfortunately...
Please note I am not pointing fingers at anyone. I am only sharing my thoughts.
Today collectors and dealers speak about all matching patina on perfect examples. That this is the way to see if a watch is all original or put together. Personally I never understood why a perfect dial would require a perfect case or the other way around. Still you often seem to find these examples somehow. Some true and some.. well.. just put together. Most collectors and dealers know this but we are still shocked when watches like this appear on the market and gets caught. Not that we are stupid but perhaps we are a bit naive wanting that perfect piece.
I do not agree with Sacha above that we are hurting the vintage market while we react and discuss this. I think it is healthy to be open with what we see and talk about it. Sure it is not great for the community with all the cheating but on the other hand things will only get worse if we don't talk about it. As long as the demand side screams for top quality this is what we will get. In most cases the watches will already be prepared before it end up on auctions or at your favourite dealer.
I might be too cynical but I stopped thinking about my watches story. Let's not say I think all watches are projects but I would not pay extra for 'untouched and in perfect conditions'. I'd happily pay for top quality but I pay for the watch as it is. Not the feeling it is all original and untouched. Unfortunately...
Please note I am not pointing fingers at anyone. I am only sharing my thoughts.
- Posts
- 491
- Likes
- 595
maxbelg
·agree wholeheartedly with this. . .to me the open item is the bezel. we could all benefit from a definitive view on this bezel. or is it possible that the reproductions are becoming so good that even an expert cannot tell. i have had several world experts they can tell aldo bezels from the like. . are there now scary variants that cannot be distinguished and where does that leave us ?
Indeed that's a good question: What do we do when faked parts can't be distinguished from real parts anymore. That would probably really kill the market.........................
- Posts
- 491
- Likes
- 595
maxbelg
·....I might be too cynical but I stopped thinking about my watches story. Let's not say I think all watches are projects but I would not pay extra for 'untouched and in perfect conditions'. I'd happily pay for top quality but I pay for the watch as it is. Not the feeling it is all original and untouched.........
I completely agree on this and that's actually what I was trying to say, but you said it much better.........😀
- Posts
- 1,072
- Likes
- 1,480
Dgercp
·Kox 😉
