Libel for what?

Davidoff himself admits (after proof was found) that he had this watch in his stock. Funny, he doesn't have any photos of it.

The watch passed through his hands. Was it touched up before? Did Davidoff made a mistake by not recognizing an obviously relumed dial and reproduction bezel? He claims to be a vintage expert, how did he not pick up a onbvious franken "period correct" watch?

It's a complicated story for which a lot of people will want to keep quiet...That's how it rolls at the auctions in Geneva

 

Perhaps my language was harsh.

I just couldn't believe a story where nobody knew what a simple thing was while so many experts were involved in selling that particular piece.

"Guys we made a mistake on this one" would have been more appropriate. Now everybody will claim "I found it that way" and "in 10 years will double it's price"

But that's not the point, is it?

 

... and herein lies the truth of the matter.

If you're in the market for a ... (thinking of an example), an America's Cup Seamaster, then search for the best example, boxed, with papers and everything else. They are out there; they are relatively new; they are reasonably plentiful. You can insist on something that's basically as new.

On the other hand, let's use an example I have: you want a 1956 Heuer Alarm. Only a handful were ever made; fewer still survive. I've only ever seen one photograph of the reference other than the one I own. I know mine has a replacement seconds hand, but you have to "cut your cloth" and accept that or decide that you just don't want to own one.

Now come to a 60 year old tool watch. The one owner barn finds are as rare as rocking horse shit. Finding them is a full time job unless a potential seller actually seeks you out as a buyer because of your profile as a buyer and collector. That means that you end up looking for where these watches are sold. You have to wait for someone else to find them for you.

Due to the fact that these watches were tools, most were used as such and most were damaged in some way. Even those that were well looked after and serviced suffered as a result of that with later replacement parts. So, as a collector, we have to consider what counts as "original" and what is (that dreaded word) a "franken".

Here's my two-penneth: what really counts is the intention of the seller:
If the watch is genuinely original, then that is the easiest example to weigh and you can fully expect to pay a large premium to own it;
If the watch is an example with a number of genuine replacement parts that have been added over the years .. It's still a genuine watch but it has a story. I'm wearing a 2998 right now that has a later bezel and later crown. It's still a great watch. I know it's history. I'm the third owner it's had and I know who replaced what, when and why. The later parts only have an effect on the overall value of the watch. To me, it's not " wrong" (though I have struggled with the idea of replacing those parts), instead it wears it's history.
(This much text deserves a photo to break it up):


The third type of watch is the one that needs most thought: the watch that has been brought back to original condition. If I offered this 2998 for sale, would you pay more for it with a new FF crown and DON bezel? Would it be wrong of me to replace those parts? Would anyone have a problem with period correct parts? Which would you value higher? Would you, as a buyer, have a problem if my ad didn't mention that the DON was only fitted last week? There are no major dings or marks on this case, but what if there was and yet the bezel didn't have a corresponding mark?

To my mind, none of the above examples have any issues other than determining an appropriate market value. And you know the best way to find out what the market will pay? Stick it in for auction!

The only watch that would cause me pain and cause for thought is that which is an assemblage of non-contemporaneous parts. I use the same sort of approach as car collectors: chassis, engine, gearbox, axles: do the numbers match? Is interior correct? Is the bodywork right? Is the paint original? I deliberately list in that order because anything higher up the list means that the car is "wrong"; anything lower down means that it's less valuable.

We just need to work out how that list applies to a watch. And that list will be unique to each collector.

 

I made my first posts and they seem to be recieved as poor form, which I didn't intent to do so.

I only wanted to show the blisful ignorance when it comes to dealers who pretend they don't know anything about a certain watch when shit hits the fan but they claim themselves to be experts.

If you delete my posts and all the subsequent ones I will start over with a different tone. I don't want this to be a witch hunt, but rather an eye opener that even prominent dealers can hide some stuff

Thanks

 

No worse in my view than the straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks made by Davidoff in his posts in this thread, that many have simply let slide. Kox presented a well researched post and was personally attacked for it by someone who was later exposed as having been involved with the watch in some way. My opinion based on what I see in this thread is that you are spot on.

 

Very suitable term

 

Having read everything here a couple of times, just to make sure I don't miss anything, the core of this seems to be:

1 - None of us have a problem with a watch improved using period correct, and reference correct parts, as long as it's disclosed.

2 - All of us have a problem with a vendor (no matter who they are), listing/promoting/selling a watch as "Original" when they are either fully aware that it is not "original", or there are enough alarm bells ringing to call it into question.

In this case, it feels very much like the auction house could have chosen to exclude the word "original" and there wouldn't be this much heat... it almost feels like they either chose to misrepresent the watch on purpose to drive the price, or didn't do enough research and perhaps trusted people that might have had a vested interest in the sale.

I've no evidence of the above, but often if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

Nicely summarized, and respectfully done as well. No need for personal attacks on either side of the issue. My president does enough of that on a nearly daily basis; don't need to read it here too.

 

A dealer coming here voicing an opinion is often held to a higher standard than a mere mortal, so it is a brave thing to do. And I am glad when it happens. I do not want to see a witch hunt on anyone. All are welcome in my book - pull people in, never push them out.

By quite fiercely defending the OP watch, Sacha Davidoff did himself no favors in my book by his non disclosure of his previous involvement in marketing the watch, thus leaving himself open to members questioning his motives in that forceful post.

I think @lolipooop has in fact articulated what I had thought. - that it is very difficult for a dealer to remain objective, and while I admire Sacha’s passion and his attempt to be involved with the collector community, his lack of disclosure in this case has highlighted how difficult it is for a dealer to retain integrity in this environment. A dealer will often have to be selectively honest - it is his livelihood. I can tell you what I paid for a watch but a dealer will not want to. (Unless he is one of those awful ignorant “just give me 10%” dealers). So dealers by definition cannot be as open as a collector.

It is clear to me that Sacha had involvement in this watch in different states - but failed to point that out. This has exposed him to accusations of being involved in undisclosed alterations which may or may not be the case.

I don’t know a dealer who doesn’t change bezels, parts and so on to improve the value of the watch. If you are involved in this community then without 100% disclosure someone here will point it out. We spend hours debating lume quality for example - and a high end dealer is held to a higher standard than collectors. Especially if he has actually made the alterations himself.

I think my point is, if you come here and are not 100% open with us, we will find out.

 

Unfortunately we know that auction houses sell dubious things every day despite the obvious incentives not to. And this is the case for all of them, big and "important" or not, watches or other things. Happily the buyer will probably have recourse, morally or legally, due to this thread. If I had bought it then I would be doing this now.

 

Sacha is obviously an articulate person and experienced dealer. Thus, to your point, what motivated him to open the can of worms? Was the thoroughness of the collective knowledge here underestimated?

 

Demonstrably

 

I know it's a crappy picture, but a google image search shows me this.

Edit to add: I don't know if this is the same watch, but it's the same reference, same year, and it's also FAP. Edit 2: Just looked back at the Phillips pics and it has the same strap, so I'm pretty sure it's the same watch. Has bezel inlay no. 4.

 

Omega Seamaster 300*** CK 2913-7 FAP*** 1961 - Roy & Sacha Davidoff SA
OMEGA Seamaster 300 CK 2913-7 lollipop, Fuerza Aerea del Peru (FAP) , extremely rare, 1961
Serial: 16684xxx
Circa: 1961
Reference: CK 2913-7

DIAL: Black matte dial with painted luminous triangle indexes. Luminous metal reverse broad arrow hands and lollipop seconds hand.

CASE: 38.5mm Stainless Steel, bi-directional 60min bezel with minutes indication, straight lugs, back engraved with Seamaster logo and the words “Certified High Pressure Waterproof” as well as military engraving 'FAP'

MOVEMENT: Omega Cal. 501, self-winding mechanical, 20 jewels

BRACELET: Black rubber bracelet

CONDITION REPORT: The dial is in excellent condition. The lollipop seconds hands has been refilled and color matched. The bezel and case are original and in good condition.

NOTE: This rare Seamaster 300 comes complete with Omega archives confirming delivery to the Peruvian Air Force (FAP) in 1961, which is a very rare provenance additional to an already rare model.

SOLD

 

I said this was thread of the year... And that was 20 posts ago!

 

As usual, what isn't written is what's interesting...

 

I think to be fair to Sacha Davidoff, we should wait for him to chime in.

I agree his non-disclosure of his involvement was fishy, and I did not like the way he used innuendo against Kox in his posts, but in all fairness he should be given some time to respond. It will be interesting and educational for us all, I'm sure.

 

My take home from this post is that it supports my approach of trying not to buy from auctions or dealers.
I am much more comfortable buying from collectors. Yes I may lose out on the rare and spectacular, but so be it.

And to put a positive spin on this labyrinth post, I wish to formally thank the following OF members who I was fortunate enough to purchase the below watches from. @BASE1000 @The Master of Speed @abrod520 @Tom Dick
Each of these collectors were fair, honest, knowledgeable, courteous and forthcoming. All were a joy to deal with.