Who said they were either fakes or over priced? http://nypost.com/2016/07/17/billionaire-sues-uk-watch-seller-for-duping-him-out-of-700k/
I'm skeptical, given the lack of substance to the article, and Dowling's long career. It's easy to file lawsuits, and especially when one has limitless funds. Dowling has been around a long time, and would have plenty to lose by being dishonest.
How can you sue someone for selling you something that is overpriced? (Presumably the overpriced ones were genuine). If the price is revealed upfront and you're happy to pay it, isn't that your own fault?
Wonder if he bought it at retail prices and tried to sell and got dealer buy prices then didn't understand the price disparity. The claim of counterfeit and overpriced though is suspicious, if they're counterfeit then they're counterfeit and the price paid is irrelevant. Sounds more like buyers remorse to be honest.
Not necessarily. If, to use just one example, an agent (say Fine Art) were to represent something at a certain price, with full knowledge that it was actually available at a lower price, it would minimally be unethical, and in some cases illegal. Who knows if Dowling was selling watches that he owned himself, or brokering?
Overpriced is WAY different than fake. At worst, Dowling plucked a pigeon who had more money than sense, and the pigeon is pissed off that he wasn't smart enough to avoid being plucked.
Would like to know who the buyers expert is. Gotta have big balls to claim you know vintage Rolexes better than Mr Dowling.
People were warned. http://nickhacko.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/tough-times-ahead-for-collectors-of.html " For me, that means no trading in vintage Rolex watches, except for pieces which I can personally guarantee as 100% genuine. Pieces like "one owner's watch" - watches acquired from ORIGINAL owners who bought them new back in the 60s/70s. Watches with dubious provenance must be rejected straight away. Yes, some dealers and collectors would do anything to make a quick profit. "
Meanwhile, at the billionaire's club, where old money pranksters are having a good laugh at the mere suggestion of a fake to the new member whom they perhaps feel doesn't belong in their club is laughing their asses off while he goes and chases his Moby Dick.
Which is it, Mr. Author? There's a big difference between the two. This sounds a lot like the John Mayer/Robert Maron dispute. With vintage Rolex, there is such a fine line and disagreements amongst experts over what is or isn't factory correct, almost any story could be true. Or maybe not. gatorcpa
