Forums Latest Auctions Members
  1. frackas

    frackas Nov 14, 2016

    Posts
    20
    Likes
    17
    I am considering this SM300 from the upcoming Watches of Knightsbridge auction. I have some reservations, and would love to hear your thoughts.

    Hands could easily be replacements, as they’re hardly patinated at all. The big triangle has a blemish on the left side, which makes me think relume. However it’s hard to be sure. I spoke with a representative there who said that the lume still glows. Is this normal for an original watch of this age?

    In addition it’s being marketed as including original box, booklet and guarantee. But the last page of the guarantee is missing, so there’s really nothing linking the watch to it. I welcome all opinions!

    Here’s a link to the auction, look for Lot 230:

    http://watchesofknightsbridge.com/view-auction-catalogues.html

    original.jpg
     
  2. TomGW

    TomGW Nov 14, 2016

    Posts
    185
    Likes
    103
    I have looked long and hard at this one too and don't know what to think from the photos. Possibly in your hand you would have a better idea of just how original it is, but I think you're right to have questions.
    The lume in the BT and at 6 have the distinctive 'pinholes' which would help suggest it's original. I totally agree that the hands appear unusually fresh for that age. Also the deterioration of the lume in the bezel appears to be wholly at odds with the dial and hands, which seem pristine. The case appears sharp but there's a huge amount of 'gunk' - artfully added or years of use??
    The back page can easily become detached in the warranty booklet, but the fact that it's missing means that there's no connection at all between the documentation and the watch - consequently I would not add any value at all.
    My area of interest is really older Speedmasters, so my opinions on this one are of little consequence.
     
  3. Dgercp

    Dgercp Nov 14, 2016

    Posts
    876
    Likes
    1,159
    Agree with your concerns. The big triangle looks real sloppy to me. The three marker not so much better.
    And yes there are holes, but that alone does not make this original IMO. The 6 marker hole is significantly larger than the 12 marker hole. Hands look way too fresh as mentioned.

    As discussed in a recent post I placed, original lume can still glow, but ussually not that long.
     
  4. Sanmilc

    Sanmilc Nov 14, 2016

    Posts
    214
    Likes
    198
    Maybe is the photo but that big 12 triangle looks like my 4 years old son did it... also 3 and 5 markers look a little bit weird, but maybe is just the angle and crystal…..
     
  5. watchlovr

    watchlovr Nov 14, 2016

    Posts
    1,294
    Likes
    1,656
    I like it, I think the dial looks fine, hands do match very well but I think they look ok from the photos.
    Agree on the paperwork, cannot 100% connect these to the watch.

    What do we think about the estimate?
    What do members think it will go for?
     
  6. jebula

    jebula Nov 14, 2016

    Posts
    55
    Likes
    47
    Shouldn't the big triangle go more over the minute marks on both side? It looks to be more over on the left side compared to right, so I think there's some problem with the dial..
     
  7. cchen

    cchen Nov 14, 2016

    Posts
    355
    Likes
    557
    I've tried this one on. Patina seems ok. Not sure why the big T lume is messy. Estimate seems too high
     
    IMG_3438.JPG
    frackas likes this.
  8. watchlovr

    watchlovr Nov 14, 2016

    Posts
    1,294
    Likes
    1,656
    Thanks, looks much better in your photo.
    Did the substance in the hands look the same as that on the dial?
    Anything "fishy" about the watch that you saw?
     
  9. frackas

    frackas Nov 15, 2016

    Posts
    20
    Likes
    17
    Thanks for all the responses. I am glad to hear that I'm not the only with these thoughts. After a fair amount of research, I have yet to come across an example that left the factory with lume outside the lines like that. I guess it could theoretically have happened naturally over the course of it's life, but It's just hard to be convinced. I have also never seen 50 year old hands looking like that. Apparently it came through a dealer who bought it from the original owner. In that case, it would have been of great value to have a letter from the owner explaining what the watch has been through. This information should be easily obtainable. In the absence of that, we're left to guess.
     
  10. watchlovr

    watchlovr Nov 15, 2016

    Posts
    1,294
    Likes
    1,656
    Here are some more "unbalanced" big T lume shots.

    IMG_1731.JPG IMG_0510.jpg
     
  11. cchen

    cchen Nov 15, 2016

    Posts
    355
    Likes
    557
    The two suspect things that I saw were the messy big T lume and a mismatch between the bezel lume and the dial lume. The hands *seemed* to be similar to the dial
     
  12. frackas

    frackas Nov 15, 2016

    Posts
    20
    Likes
    17
    I apologize, but I wasn't expressing myself well. I meant I haven't seen lume outside the triangle lines like that before. The triangle crossing the minute markers seems to be fairly common. But I haven't seen lume blemishes like the one in question before. Here is the Watches of Knightsbridge triangle:
    WOKB triangle.jpg

    Here are a few others for comparison:

    Triangle comp3.1.jpg

    Triangle comp2.2.jpg

    Triangle comp10.jpg
     
  13. watchlovr

    watchlovr Nov 15, 2016

    Posts
    1,294
    Likes
    1,656
    Ah, ok I understand now, thanks for clarifying.
    Agreed, it is a little messy to the left of the triangle.
    I thought that might have been a crystal scratch distorting the view, it seems not.

    I have seen similar issues with Rolex, I decided against a Sea Dweller 1665 because of a similar issue on the BT lume of it.
    It was completely legit, I just thought it would annoy me in the future so said no.

    Edit. I'd still buy the SM300 if I was in the market!
    (I will not be bidding)
     
  14. watchlovr

    watchlovr Nov 18, 2016

    Posts
    1,294
    Likes
    1,656
    So, anyone attending tomorrow?
    I'll not be there but will be watching.
     
  15. buddman

    buddman Nov 19, 2016

    Posts
    98
    Likes
    59
    Sold for £12500 plus commission.

    So much for the estimate being too low.
     
  16. watchlovr

    watchlovr Nov 19, 2016

    Posts
    1,294
    Likes
    1,656
    Sold for about £15k inc costs, that is insane.
    Screen Shot 2016-11-19 at 13.54.15.png
     
    Tubber likes this.