One-Owner 145.012 with Personalised engraving added value or not??

Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
An auction house is technically really the same as a dealer. It’s just a consignment deal but then again, even HQ Milton sells on consignment sometimes.

In some cases Unsold lots go back to owner, in other cases the auction house owns the item and just rolls it into the next relevant auction.

But consignment aside the function is the same. Both a dealer and an auction house will take the watch from the user/ owner, verify it’s authenticity and then, without using it themselves, will sell it at a premium justifies by their “stamp of approval”

The amount of hands the watch goes through in both cases is identical, as is the amount of users/ owners.
 
Posts
27,573
Likes
70,182
And it is THE point about one-owner watches.

Some here get the point clearly...
 
Posts
27,573
Likes
70,182
The amount of hands the watch goes through in both cases is identical, as is the amount of users/ owners.

Again we have different definitions of what "owning" something means.
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
Some here get the point clearly...
I get the point Archer, I just don’t agree with it
 
Posts
27,573
Likes
70,182
I get the point Archer, I just don’t agree with it

Noted.
 
Posts
495
Likes
595
Yes, that's my point.

True enough in the strict sense of the definition! After a sale it isn't anymore though.

I still think of it as a one-owner watch but what's really important to me is not whether it is or isn't a one-owner watch, it's the condition it's in, i.e all original parts. I started a thread some time ago about the desirability of extensive restoration which results in a period-correct watch here: https://omegaforums.net/threads/thoughts-on-a-145-012-67.65807/
That watch ended up being in an excellent period-correct shape but there is a loss of romanticism for some. It's nice to think someone stared at the same dial, case etc decades ago. This brings the trust issue because otherwise we wouldn't know whether it started out this was. If we can speak to the one and only owner and believe them, then we can gaze at our watches with this romantic notion. That's the true meaning of a one-owner watch for me. That's also the reason I don't mind or count the son and the dealer as they didn't alter or wear this watch.
 
Posts
495
Likes
595
I get the point Archer, I just don’t agree with it

I agree with you. (I also agree with Archer depending on how literally you want to take the concept)

Just goes to show that words can have different meanings to different people. It had a single owner for decades and decades which I own now and nobody else was an owner who wore this watch for any meaningful time or had it serviced. Therefore it stays a one-owner watch to me.
 
Posts
27,573
Likes
70,182
True enough in the strict sense of the definition! After a sale it isn't anymore though.

I guess that depends on who you ask apparently. If it isn't "one owner" after a sale, then your watch had 2 owners before you bought it, not one. It was sold to the dealer you purchased it from, and the dealer is the second owner. For me it doesn't matter how long they owned it, if they wore it or serviced it, or if they tinkered with it. But other clearly see things differently, and I'm glad I know that and who those people are.

If for you it's all about the condition, that's fine. For me it's certainly about that, but it's also about people using a definition in such a way that they become "weasel words" and possibly outright lies. Some here seem to be fine with that, but I'm not. It's a decision we all have to make I guess, and I will certainly look at sales by people here in a different way than I have in the past based on this thread.

Cheers, Al
 
Posts
3,354
Likes
7,191
128 posts so far about a non significant date inscription on a speedy?! ::facepalm1::
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
That’s a bit agressive Archer, specially given I have never sold a “one owner watch” or even used term on any sale or even acted as a dealer but, hey, aim and shoot.
 
Posts
495
Likes
595
I guess that depends on who you ask apparently. If it isn't "one owner" after a sale, then your watch had 2 owners before you bought it, not one. It was sold to the dealer you purchased it from, and the dealer is the second owner. For me it doesn't matter how long they owned it, if they wore it or serviced it, or if they tinkered with it. But other clearly see things differently, and I'm glad I know that and who those people are.

If for you it's all about the condition, that's fine. For me it's certainly about that, but it's also about people using a definition in such a way that they become "weasel words" and possibly outright lies. Some here seem to be fine with that, but I'm not. It's a decision we all have to make I guess, and I will certainly look at sales by people here in a different way than I have in the past based on this thread.

Cheers, Al

True enough. I do however think that the "spirit" of a one-owner watch (for lack of better wording) is in the long time ownership and unaltered state when bought. I don't care if it was sold unaltered every day for 3 weeks from one dealer to the next You might call it a 22 owner watch then. It's still one man who wore the watch for decades and decades and coming to me in the condition he left it.
 
Posts
495
Likes
595
That’s a bit agressive Archer, specially given I have never sold a “one owner watch” or even used term on any sale or even acted as a dealer but, hey, aim and shoot.

Don't worry Nobel Prize I'm sure he doesn't mean anything negative by his comments. I was a bit stunned myself by the tone of some of the comments earlier on in the thread. It's more aggressive communication than I'm used to anyway. Then again here in Belgium most people go out of their way not to offend anybody else. (I'm not originally from Belgium)
 
Posts
495
Likes
595
128 posts so far about a non significant date inscription on a speedy?! ::facepalm1::

Indeed, I didn't expect such a lot of comments but we've drifted far off-topic in this thread, haven't we?
 
Posts
27,573
Likes
70,182
That’s a bit agressive Archer, specially given I have never sold a “one owner watch” or even used term on any sale or even acted as a dealer but, hey, aim and shoot.

Never said you acted as a dealer, or sold a watch listed as such, but hey, aim and shoot! 😉
 
Posts
2,520
Likes
17,818
I’m on @Archer ‘s side here.

If I had a nickel for every watch that’s been represented to me as “one owner”, I could buy a 2915 by now. Every middle man I’ve ever dealt with has run this line, in one version or another.

Other than the actual, original owner, anyone else making that representation to me is only ‘hearsay’ testimony. I investigate things for a living and I’ve learned to be very skeptical about people telling me what they been told by third parties.

Every new set of hands a watch passes thru is significant and, as a collector, counts in my book. It’s just another set of unknown custodian hands.

My two cents.
 
Posts
495
Likes
595
I’m on @Archer ‘s side here.......

I'm not against Arthur either, just have a different concept of the terminology. Do we have sides now?
 
Posts
495
Likes
595
Any disagreement has ‘sides’, yes?

We "disagree" again 😁 I though we were discussing a concept and there were different opinions. Or is it always a disagreement when there are different opinions to you?