Quite a story to read. http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/sa...-lost-at-sea/story-29846644-detail/story.html
I bet when Christie’s realized the man on the engraving was still alive they knew they’d risk this blowing up if they just put it up for sale publicly, so they tried to keep it down.
Sure, but asking if he was willing to "negotiate" for the return of his own watch... It reminds me of when a racehorse called Shergar was stolen and the owners were asked to negotiate for the safe return.
OK. first it was lost, now when they found it, he claims it was stolen? If police report was made back in 80s for stolen watch I would say give the sailors watch back, in this case I do not know what to say. He can be happy someone find his beloved watch and ask him if he want it back.....ofcourse with little finders fee.
One point of interest though from that article is the question of due diligence when buying and selling used watches. I also wonder if the Rolex in question was insured and whether a claim for the loss was made. If that was the case the insurance company would have a claim on ownership.
Christies could theoretically end up in legal trouble if they did that. I don't know how it works in Switzerland though.
Touchy, touchy subject here. How many watches and antiquities could fall under this type of circumstances...too darn many to count. If the watch was lost, no police report and no insurance claim, then Christie's did the right thing by offering it for purchase...at a fair price...the key is a fair price. If the watch was stolen...well then...that is another matter all together.
I've generally been against watch engravings in the past but in this instance would anybody have questioned the ownership without that engraving?
If the watch was stolen, why didn't the thief remove the engraving? Maybe he was drunk and "lost" it in a poker game?
It would be a brave or foolish man reporting this to the police and going to the papers if that was the case.
.. I hope this works out. Christies is a reputable firm who cares about their brand. One of the good things about social media is that they don't want this going viral.
I wonder if we're ever going to get to the point of having title insurance for watches as we do for houses. Or maybe we're already there, and I'm just not in that league.......
Man is using the media to get his "lost"/"stolen" watch back. It was not stolen, where's the police report? He changed his story to "stolen" when Christies did not want to give the watch back to him. Who is to say he did not sell the watch back in the 80's? Christies did the right thing by contacting the man first. But no good deed goes unpunished. There is no good outcome for Christies here. If they eat the cost and give the watch to the man (i.e. buying it from the seller and giving it away), this will drive away people who want to auction off their stuff - bad for business. If they don't give the watch to the man, they get bad press. The only better thing they could have done is to have the actual seller contact the original owner and get out of the way, or just refuse to accept the watch for auction. Key fact that is not mentioned in the article or in the current discussion in this thread - the watch is not Christie's property. Someone owns the watch and wants Christies to sell it for them. This is between original owner, and the current owner. This only made press because "Christies". If this were just an issue of a guy wanting a watch he lost from another guy, does this make the news? If it were me, I'd get out of the way, make it clear to everyone that Christies did the right thing by contacting the man, but this is between original owner and the seller who wants Christies to sell the watch.
Whether it's lost or stolen, the ownership could remain with this guy but that does depend on the country where it was lost potentially. Whilst we don't know exactly what was said on both sides I have some sympathy with Christies as it sounds as if their initial involvement was simply to offer their guy first refusal - however I suspect they didn't handle the situation too well when he informed them that the watch hadn't been legally sold. After that point they should never agree to "negotitate" as that was always going to look suspicious. Their job as soon as the guy informed them that he didn't sell it legally is to report it to the police and let the legal situation be sorted out but it does look on the face of it as if the guy had to go public to force that situation.
I did think that there *could* be some sympathy due to the seller - it's highly unlikely that someone knowing a watch is stolen would give it to an auction house knowing that they'd try to track provenance with such an obvious inscription. Without the inscription it's just another Rolex - he could have bought a new caseback and sold it without issue.