Forums Latest Members
  1. Aqv02l Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    3
    Likes
    0
    hi I have just sold this omega Geneve automatic. (Picture below) the buyer wants to return it as he says it has two bubbles on the dial. I can only assume he's talking about the marks at just below the 4 marker and one just above the 10 marker. Those marks were there when I came into possession of the watch and I thought they were meant to be there and they were there to hold the dial in place. Could anyone confirm what they are please is it a fault or are they meant to be there. image.png
     
  2. dx009 Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    1,155
    Likes
    584
    Those marks should not be there and I can't tell what they are from this picture alone. Are they on the dial itself or the crystal ? I can't tell whether they're something that can be cleaned off or dings on the dial itself (which is the more serious issue).
     
  3. Willem023 Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    883
    Likes
    1,103
    Hi Aqv021, welcome!
    Dial should not have these two marks. Google Omega Geneve on i-net and you'll not find similar. That might have been a give-away to you.

    Moreover: the question should be
    - have you mentioned the two spots in your add
    - could the buyer see in the pics that they were there
    - is it reasonable to expect a dial from a 30+ year watch to be spotless

    I would return the watch too if there had been no mention of it in pics or add.

    My2Ksh
    W
     
  4. cicindela Steve @ ΩF Staff Member Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    15,047
    Likes
    23,789
    They are not meant to be there. Probably hiding screws holding the dial as the dial feet are broken off.
     
    Willem023 likes this.
  5. Aqv02l Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    3
    Likes
    0
    Hi they are not marks on the face it's as if they are two small nibs that poke through from under the dial to hold it in place. When I removed the dial to clean the inside of the crystal the face re position onto these holes. They are exactly symmetrical to each other so I presumed they were meant to be there.
    Willem023 no they were not mentioned in the description as I thought they were meant to be there however I did state good condition CONSIDERING age. And the picture I have posted on here was taken from the add along with many more that showed the dial and the two marks. I don't feel I have tried to hide anything as they are clearly visible.
     
  6. Aqv02l Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    3
    Likes
    0
    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/172239972676Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

    This is the advert on eBay they are clearly visible on all photos
     
  7. Willem023 Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    883
    Likes
    1,103
    All the same: they should not be there and buyer is right in wanting to send it back to you. This is not an age-thing, patina might be.

    As a buyer: due dilligence into checking out the seller is a 'must', so is it for the seller to dig as deep as possible to be sure what he/she sells.
    'Presume' will not do the trick enough then.
    Only in that way, it will work.
    Afraid you have a watch that not many people (collectors) are willing to pay a lot for.

    Interesting discussion the both of you will have, since it presumably will have shown on the pics.

    W out.
     
  8. cicindela Steve @ ΩF Staff Member Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    15,047
    Likes
    23,789
    They are not supposed to there. They do mar the dial. This is not good condition, regardless of the age. This is not how dials are secured.
    Sorry.
     
  9. JimInOz Melbourne Australia Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    15,476
    Likes
    32,332
    The spots are where the dial feet/pegs/posts are attached to the dial.

    Some enterprising scissorhands has either used the wrong dial and McGyvered the feet to fit the movement, or has broken the feet off and done a quicky fixy.

    Discuss a discount with the buyer or take it back and save your feedback.
     
    chronos likes this.
  10. omegasaso12 Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    410
    Likes
    1,408
    I read your listing on ebay, you wrote it like you know a lot about watches with picture of case back off and movement and as much as infos you could gather. But then again you did not know that you have damaged dial

    "THE SUN RAY-BURST DIAL,HANDS,ORIGINAL GOLD PLATED CASE ARE IN GREAT CONDITION CONSIDERING ITS AGE AS SHOWN !"
    You wrote condition is great.


    Next time it would be better if you only wrote: "Condition as shown in picture" and on the end "pictures are part of description."
    In that case you are protected against "not as described" item.

    I would never wrote that vintage Omega goes in chronometer standards (even if it goes). For ebay you better write: watch works great and is precise, but be advice you are buying vintage watch that maybe needs service or regulation.
    If you maybe have picture of watch on timegrapher that can be added.

    You did not wrote that in your listing, so buyer can return due to "not as described" so there is not much you can do. In this case ebay will stand with seller 100%.
     
  11. MSNWatch Vintage Omega Aficionado Staff Member Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    6,531
    Likes
    10,796
    [​IMG]

    How the dial should look like.
     
    JimInOz likes this.
  12. Albe100 Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    572
    Likes
    612
    I have the same watch, original it was my father's and the dial is clean on it. I agree with omegasaso12, if you mentioned the pictures were part of the description and watch is as sold, if you see any issues, have questions contact me type of comment. You would be in the right to refuse the return. However it wasn't clear in the listing. In your defence the buyer should have done his research and asked you about the spots prior to purchase.

    Good luck!


    Alberto
     
  13. kingsrider Thank you Sir! May I have another? Jun 23, 2016

    Posts
    2,689
    Likes
    5,431
    If you value your seller rating, offer to take it back. Most likely you will sell again for more money.

    Sorry Jim, I just saw your comment and your are right.