Sailor says being blackmailed by Christie's Auctions over £10k Rolex he lost at sea

Not sure what Christie's did wrong here. Obviously, there is a potential dispute over ownership. Christie's likely would have preferred a quiet settlement rather than the world learning they accepted a possibly stolen item, and might have encouraged the alleged current owner to part with it for less than its full value. The parties themselves also might have wanted a confidential resolution, and I'm sure many such disputes are settled this way. But without both parties agreeing to that approach, there's nothing anyone can do but let formal legal inquiries run their course.

I wonder how much the seller tried to get out of the original owner for the thing.

Maybe this is my ignorance of rolex showing, but what reference submariner from 1988 or later is worth 10,000 pounds today?

From the image it's got a date window, so it'd probably be either a 16610, or a 16800 bought a year or two after they stopped making them?

Is this a precedent setting issue or an isolated event?

Personally, I think Apple has staged the whole thing to discredit the vintage watch market and cast smart watches in a better light. You can always locate your Apple Watch (tm) with Find My iPhone..

Clearly I need to get famous so that all my shit gets more valuable just by virtue of me owning it. Seems like a good business model.

I wonder if we'll ever find out where the current owner acquired the watch.

We all look like that in Cornwall 😉

The original owner first assumed his watch was lost at sea (though probably not far enough from shore for the "law of the sea" to apply). It may also have been lost on dry land. Now he is assuming it was stolen. But the general principle the Anglo-American legal tradition is that title in lost property (like stolen property but unlike abandoned property) forever remains with the original owner, with the exception that in modern times there is often a procedure for turning in found property to the authorities, and if it is unclaimed after a certain period, title goes to the finder. Under certain circumstances there can be an affirmative duty to turn it in. So it would have been a very good idea for the original owner to file a police report immediately. There is also sometimes a distinction between lost and mislaid property, and in the latter case the original owner may have an affirmative duty to try to get the property back within a certain time.

I'm going to try to keep this pretty generalised as I don't know the details and I'm too tired (lazy?) to look them up, assuming they're even available.

The basic rule when it comes to selling goods in the UK is that "no-one gives what he doesn't have". So, let's assume that the watch was stolen: the person who stole the watch has flawed (or no) title - he doesn't own the watch. Anyone who subsequently buys that watch inherits the same flawed title and that buyer will be the loser in any subsequent claim. The fact that the watch is very identifiable because of the engraving would probably mean that any claim would be easily proven and the watch goes back to the original owner. What does it mean here? There is no way on this earth or the next that the auction house would dare sell the watch.

Now, there are always exceptions in English Law. The one that's relevant here is "estoppel by negligence". Estoppel is a principle of equity (fairness) that was introduced into law. The question that has to be asked is "has the original owner done anything that will preclude him from exercising his legal rights?". When it comes to estoppel by negligence, the question changes to "has the owner FAILED to do something which would then preclude him from exercising his rights of ownership. We actually have precedent on this very question: does the failure to report a theft to the police constitute estoppel by negligence? And the answer is a definite "no". So failure to report a theft doesn't damage your claim to the goods.

Does the owner have to prove theft? Well, yes. He could go with res (ipsa loquitur) - the thing speaks for itself - moving the onus on to the seller to prove that he didn't steal the watch or that he didn't buy it from someone who stole the watch. This could get messy and we'll just leave it at that for now with the exception of this: if the seller can show that the watch was found while diving, for instance, then salvage rights might well come in to play.

What's the bottom line here? The original owner retains good title under English law. The current holder of the property is the one with flawed title and will bear the loss. If the current holder has proof of purchase and/or a contract, he has an action against the seller for the value but this does nothing to give good title.

Source: nine years of law school and practice before I saw the light and did something honest for a change.

That's very interesting. I just wonder how far English law applies though in a situation where the watch has popped up in Switzerland. In this instance we have no facts about the current owner or how the watch was acquired, so it's all guess work.

On a broader watch related topic it also raises questions about the wisdom of buying vintage watches with engravings unless you have categoric evidence the watch was sold legitimately. I'm often perplexed at how beautiful presentation watches with engravings pop up so frequently on eBay. They must be very personal to somebody.

I've a couple of watches with engravings. One, a JW Benson from 1971, details the previous owner's 52 years with one company and was presented on his retirement. The fact is that most of these watches come from estate sales but, to me, they just help to give a piece a story. I've often wondered how someone managed to work for one company for 52 years. I you think about that for a moment, he started working there in 1919. How old would he have been? Maybe early teens? He was there through the second world war. What position had he reached by the time he finally felt, or was, compelled to leave?

Back to the original question, regardless of where the watch is sold, the original owner can get judgment from an English Court. He can then apply for a restoration order that requires any person having possession or control of the goods to restore them to the owner (s28 (a) Theft Act 1968). More than that, given the information we have, if the auction house were to attempt to sell the watch then they're open to a charge of handling stolen goods. Bottom line, Christies are incredibly reputable. They're going to be doing all they can to settle this and their only issue is the position of the person who offered this for sale. Afterall, they don't want to dissuade future sellers from bringing items to them for appraisal or sale if they think they may lose the item because of any questionable provenance.