Only because it’s you,
@ConElPueblo do I take back my kitty cat exit:
When stating that a store specialising in selling a particular brand of luxury goods - and with an associated status of Authorised Dealer granted by that brand - "is not uncommon" to be found selling counterfeit goods of that brand, I would suggest that you back that up with facts instead of being increasingly aggressive and trying to shift the burden of proof unto the one who asked for said proof.
Let’s be clear: I didn’t offer any “proof” that it’s “not uncommon” because as soon as you asked for proof I realized my mistake, and - with zero aggression toward the request for proof - responded to you instead with a correction/clarification. (Specifically, at my 12:20 I hurriedly made my first post RE “not uncommon,” at my 12:40 you asked for proof, and at my 1:20, I responded “I should have instead said, ‘buying from (any ole') AD does not alone make it
impossible to be
suspect’”).
So, your initial smugness may or may not have been needlessly hasty (no harm), but your continued smugness after my immediate correction was unnecessary and misplaced.
My insistence on referring your posts as scaremongering stems from the fact that even though you edited your original statement, you insisted on refererring to the alternatives as being "equally in-congruent" despite the alternatives having been documented fairly well
So your continued smugness boils down to that limited point?
First, I never said
all alternatives are incongruent, I said “any other alternative offered up on this thread so far are equally in-congruent (a service back on a 'brand new/from AD' watch?).” And my statement was not about the universal likelihood, but instead the likelihood in this specific instance based on then-known info.
Perhaps you simply misread/misunderstood the meaning of “
equally incongruent”? A service caseback is possible (though, to me, particularly strange in this specific scenario); and other explanations are (based on what little we knew at that time) all at least as plausible (though also have their implausible counter-points).
You seem to keep confusing the actual issue at hand in this thread with the entirely separate issue of the universal likelihood of any AD having a suspect watch. The actual issue in this thread Instead involves a specific watch, that was purported to be 5 year old NOS, “with stickers still intact,” sold by an AD that may have stock of more than only manufacturer-provided units, and a caseback missing entirely any LE numbering, and an OP apparently unwilling or unable to provide requested photos of the portions of the movement that could say one way or the other the details of the watch itself.
And yes, your unresearched reply to a new member, regurgitating baseless assumptions
is scaremongering.
See, here’s where your true colors in this thread shine through: your tone immediately above was already pregnant in your very first response to me (ignorable strike one), but then again even after I swallowed your tone and still corrected myself (Uhg, strike two).
It’s great that you’ve done research, and have your own anecdotal information; but it’s simply you being a d*ck when you immediately come out the gate assuming that nobody else has ...
I don't need a high post count to post reasonable, researched content, I did that when I had roughly 400 posts too.
See, back when you had 400 posts, I did, too; We’ve probably both learned some things since then. The only difference between us is that guys just like you are why I didn’t feel heartbroken to largely disengaged with OF for the past several years, while you meanwhile apparently have gone on to confuse it with your character.
So I’ll finish by just being blunt about what I was dancing around in my first few posts: posts just like OPs are often seen in other forums, in connection with themselves being the con at hand (with the backstory being BS, intending to drum up a “golly gee” sale in the DMs); and meanwhile, despite @ConElPueblo’s contrary anecdotal evidence, my own anecdotal evidence suggests that certain types of “ADs” that exist in shopping malls and concurrently sell hordes of other brands and also second-hand watches (or NOS watches not derived from the manufacturer), are not to be Taken without equal scrutiny - but especially when it comes to mid-tier, large-frame, Omegas (the hot spot of the very best Chinese fakes).
To me, each of the above are “equally incongruent” explanations of the OPs post, as compared to a plausible but also questionable explanation of a service dial on a NOS, stickered, watch with blank cards, being described as being like a “double 9 Rolex”
But
@ConElPueblo, don’t let me in the way of your clearly superior
opinion
