Community Stories

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

blubarb
Posts
3,846
Likes
8,767
WatchVaultNYC WatchVaultNYC
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.

Me judge. You right.
 
mozartman
Posts
325
Likes
295
Sgt_Bilko Sgt_Bilko
I was curious to see just now that the watch has gone back to the original owner

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...reunited-10000-rolex-lost-overboard-20-years/
There you go. It seems that the original owner did in fact report the watch as stolen in 1999, about a year after it went missing. In the absence of any evidence that the original owner actually sold it or otherwise parted with it voluntarily, that should be more than enough for him to win his case, as it seems he just did in an English court. But I'm still puzzled as to why this matter had to go to court in the first place. As I said in an earlier post, there must have been at least a little bit more to this case than is being made public.
 
Edward53
Posts
3,133
Likes
5,562
Just wondering whether Christies are obliged to reveal the name of the person currently in possession or whether they can legally consider themselves bound to respect client confidentiality. Without that information I don't see how this is going to be resolved.
 
Sgt_Bilko
Posts
522
Likes
2,563
I think Christies are just about in the clear on this one and will want no more involvement, though the context of their first contact with the original owner was questionable.

The court decision is by far the most compelling element in all of this. While the other party may be not be legally obliged to follow the ruling of a foreign court, it's hard to see how this ends up anywhere other than the original owner. It would be curious to know how it came into possession of the current holder.
 
Tony C.
Posts
8,022
Likes
28,179
They added: "Under no circumstance would Christie’s knowingly offer any object where there are valid concerns over the ownership."

Huh. Seems to me that, given that the watch was apparently on Interpol's "stolen" list, they have some splainin' to do.
 
jimmyd13
Posts
3,174
Likes
7,326
Tony C. Tony C.
They added: "Under no circumstance would Christie’s knowingly offer any object where there are valid concerns over the ownership."

Huh. Seems to me that, given that the watch was apparently on Interpol's "stolen" list, they have some splainin' to do.

I doubt any explanation will be forthcoming from any party. Best guess: a watch was consigned for auction by someone who had legitimately bought the piece and unaware of its past. The auction house performed their due diligence and found the watch was recorded as stolen. They made a ham fisted approach to the original owner, most likely to establish if the watch was still regarded as "stolen" and the row ensued. They would have communicated back to the consignor that the watch was recorded as stolen and he'd kicked off (because he stands to lose the watch and all value he paid for it).

So, with the conflict, the auction house refuses to release the watch (or passes it to the authorities) and wait for a court order.

It's all straightforward, just badly handled by the parties concerned.

Edit: I hate this Dan phone's autocorrect!
 
Sgt_Bilko
Posts
522
Likes
2,563
Tony C. Tony C.
They added: "Under no circumstance would Christie’s knowingly offer any object where there are valid concerns over the ownership."

Huh. Seems to me that, given that the watch was apparently on Interpol's "stolen" list, they have some splainin' to do.

Had you or I attempted to broker a similar agreement I suspect this would have been viewed in a very different light.
 
STANDY
Posts
16,856
Likes
47,865
Pays to engrave a case back then 👍
 
Sgt_Bilko
Posts
522
Likes
2,563
STANDY STANDY
Pays to engrave a case back then 👍

I'm going to have all my watches engraved with the word STOLEN. Just in case...
 
JwRosenthal
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,983
Sgt_Bilko Sgt_Bilko
I'm going to have all my watches engraved with the word STOLEN. Just in case...
Or have your name legally changed to Leonard Sto, thus you can lay claim to all Sto,Len property.
 
w154
Posts
2,597
Likes
5,656
JwRosenthal JwRosenthal
Or have your name legally changed to Leonard Sto, thus you can lay claim to all Sto,Len property.
Surely more profitable to change your name to Lex Ro.
 
mozartman
Posts
325
Likes
295
jimmyd13 jimmyd13
I doubt any explanation will be forthcoming from any party. Best guess: a watch was consigned for auction by someone who had legitimately bought the piece and unaware of its past. The auction house performed their due diligence and found the watch was recorded as stolen. They made a ham fisted approach to the original owner, most likely to establish if the watch was still regarded as "stolen" and the row ensued. They would have communicated back to the consignor that the watch was recorded as stolen and he'd kicked off (because he stands to lose the watch and all value he paid for it).

So, with the conflict, the auction house refuses to release the watch (or passes it to the authorities) and wait for a court order.

It's all straightforward, just badly handled by the parties concerned.

Edit: I hate this Dan phone's autocorrect!
A bit clumsy on Christie's part, yes, but you can't blame them for holding out hope that in most cases like this, two wealthy collectors of fine art, antiques and/or jewelry will reach a quiet gentlemen's agreement rather than soil their white gloves in a sordid public court case that each could well afford but that would likely cost much more than the disputed item is worth. Some of the wealthiest people greatly resent spending money that way. I can imagine the graceful beneficiary of such a gentlemen's agreement sending the equally graceful loser a case of Chateau Lafite from his personal cellar with a note, "So sorry, old boy! Better luck next time!" But in this case, the original owner is a professional yacht racer who lost the most significant memento of his racing career. He probably isn't very wealthy, and there won't be any next time for him.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

tomo

Speedmaster 50 event by Christie's Price Confusion

tomo Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
watchyouwant
watchyouwant
Posts
11
Views
2K