My BS detector goes off when someone starts talking about "probabilities"(I'm sure you meant Statistical). “Statistics” can be skewed and twisted to prove almost any point by including only certain variables and facts. AKA arbitrary.
You state in this thread 28% (on your site you say 24%) of your observed watches carried the b4. Then you state 70% (your website says 57%) of that 28% had replaced hands. Then you arbitrarily state the "balance of probabilities"(a legal standard of 50.1%) indicate watches with b4 bezels are incorrect. Of course probabilities deal with calculating possible Future events and Statistics deal with a population existing in the past.
I did a little statistical analysis experiment of my own today. I did a Google image search for "Omega 376.0822". I went through and looked at the first 400! images displayed. I challenge you to do the same. I then looked at all the Grail images displayed. There were over 100 different Grail watches. 21 of the watches displayed a discernible b4 bezel. I downloaded all of them to my drive. Only 2 of them displayed obviously replaced hands. That's 9.5%! A far cry from 57% or 70% you claim. But according to you, all these watches must have went for service and
Just had the bezel changed and not the dial or the hands. Have I proven anything? Hardly. I have demonstrated, at least to myself, that your statistical percentages and your conclusions from those percentages are arbitrary and meaningless. I encourage others to do the same experiment. I used a fair distribution using a simplistic search term and results displayed by an internet search engine in an attempt at avoiding being arbitrary.
Using a "balance of probabilities" standard (a 50.1% probability) to deduce a binary proposition (it exists or it doesn't exist, it’s correct or it’s not correct) is flawed. Bezels have been know to change within a reference. One example would be the 145.022-69. First batches used DON, midstream they were changed to DNN. So if I said that the 'balance of probabilities'(50.1% probability) indicates that the correct bezel for a 145.022-69 is a DON, that is flawed logic.
Furthermore, the authors of "
Moonwatch Only" acknowledge the existence of the b4 bezel 'Grail' variant by stating
"Note that this typography can also be found on other Speedmasters dating from the late 1980's. This is the case for some examples of the reference ST 376.0822, known as 'Holy Grail'."(p.122)
I appreciate your passion for this reference and the work you put into your website. I don't appreciate you making statements as if they were facts, based on arbitrary conclusions. This damages other collectors. Your statements about the b4 bezel are opinions and should be framed as such. There are likely hundreds of ‘Grails’ out there with b4 bezels and nothing else changed on them.
I enjoyed the play, Mr. Lincoln
