Thanks - yes this uses an ETA 2671 based on what I can find - a small movement and this leads to a larger spacer and longer stem than would be "normal" for a watch this size.
I haven't had the benefit of seeing the inside of this case, but it appears your watchmaker and I were thinking along similar lines.
So here's an example of a watch that illustrates a few things in one photo:
This is a Doxa shipped this way right from the factory. The stem was broken, and I'll get to that part later. But as you can see it has a movement spacer, and the movement is secured to that spacer using screws. The spacer is not connected by movement clamps to the case, but that isn't needed here, because the spacer has a gap in it that goes around the case tube that extends inside the case. This is why I asked, because if the Squale had a case tube that extended inside the case and contacted the spacer in this manner, then the theory of how this happened goes right out the window, because the spacer simply can't turn.
The other thing this illustrates is the even when you do have solid connections inside the watch, and no chance of anything turning when the case back screws down, stems can still break off. In this case at the factory (confirmed by the marks that those screws left in the spacer, which were the only marks) the movement wasn't properly aligned. This means that every time the watch is wound or set, the stem is being flexed, will work harden, and snap off. I've seen this happen on several watches, so it isn't a rare thing.
So we don't know for certain that the case was opened by the authenticator. We don't know if the watch had, from the factory, some misalignment like I've shown above. So what I'm going to suggest is that even if the watch left the seller intact, and arrived with you broken, this doesn't necessarily "prove" that the authenticator had anything to do with it.
Now before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not looking to blame or absolve anyone here. To me this is a puzzle that I'm solving, and just giving my thoughts. If people want to believe this is the fault of the authenticator, that it's due to untrained or uncaring people, that eBay is evil, or whatever, have at it. All I'm saying is that in my mind, there is
definitely doubt that this was the fault of the authenticator.
Cheers, Al
Click to expand...