I’m little reluctant to post this, because I’m not as excited as I had hoped to be and I know there will be telling critiques from some members here. But, I do really believe in the OF notion that we share our adventures, good and bad, with everyone here, so that everyone has an opportunity to learn. Apart from everything else, it is rather astonishing how Sotheby’s photos inaccurately depicted colors. You can judge for yourself. Overview: (1) the watch does not have the hoped for brown dial, but the dial itself is quite nice, although, as Sotheby’s disclosed, the lume is gone, apart from faint shadows of it; (2) the pushers are original; while the crown is correct, it’s a replacement that doesn’t fit properly; (3) the hands have been redone, most obviously the chrono second hand; I believe the relumed hour and minute hands are probably correct and vintage, but I’m including a bunch of photos because I recognize that it’s not a certainty; (4) it actually has an A1 crystal on it, probably original to the watch. I’m pleased but I wouldn’t argue I got some incredible deal. (Yes, I’ve put it on a BOR bracelet for the moment. I know the end links are wrong and need to be changed; any help in getting better end links will be greatly appreciated! I haven’t decided if I like the look or not yet.) Anyway, in that spirit, here are photos of the 105.002-62, lot 38, in Sotheby’s Speedmaster auction on July 19th. Here is a shot of their catalog photo first, just as it appeared on line: And here are some general shots Case Dial & Hands Crystal Finally, a separated at birth photo: These watches are only 164 serial numbers apart. My other -62 is closer to brown than this one. Both of them are early enough serial numbers that they are alpha handed -62s. As always, I welcome your feedback and insights, even if it hurts.
Am I curious if you asked for additional photos prior to bidding? If you haven’t, that’s always a good thing to do to confirm your thoughts / concerns. Usually it takes a few days to get anreply but it’s worth the extra insurance. I agree the actual dial doesn’t look tropical and auctions photos show a clear chocolate hue. Maybe the lighting but even so I’m not sure how brown could make its way into the dial.
I don’t think you can remotely blame yourself. The colors indeed on the catalogue photo are completely misleading and clearly appear to have been doctored. Did you obtain additional photos before you bid? This really shows the dangers of trusting catalogue photos from the major auction houses. There was a glaring instance of catalogue doctoring on a Heuer Skipper recently. (reported by On-the dash). The problem is that minute differences and nuances in color have a major impact on value.
Thank you very much for sharing this. It has been mentioned in other threads how different lighting can alter the appearance of a tropical dial but I am surprised at how misleading the auction house shots are. Not only on the dial but also the bezel which definitely appears blue on the Sotheby’s photograph. This reinforces the view that you really need to see a watch in the hand. Having said it’s a very nice and desirable watch and in my opinion at a good price that you should be pleased with. Congratulations.
I did not ask for additional photos before bidding. Given the color of the lume in their photo, I assumed the colors were wrong. I concluded, in playing with the colors on their photo myself, that the dial was not likely to be real brown, so I did not bid based on ‘it might be brown’. A big point for me was the alpha hands, which are so hard to find. The photos persuaded me that the hands were okay, although relumed. The minute hand is the correct length, bends downward toward the end and is curved across its width, even though one end of the lume channel looks a little squared off in some of the photos. Even so, I don’t blame myself. $16k plus buyer’s fees was intended as my last bid; I expected whoever was bidding against me to go one last time — but he/she didn’t. I think I did okay, just not anything to write home about.
Really lame photos from Sotheby's... Watch does not look like photos. Still nice but lame to see them do that.
I have to agree that the photos in this catalog looked like crap. Not very sharp and with too much photoshop. I think one of the main factors as to why the dial appears lighter (brown?) in the photos is that you can clearly see the (white/lighter) foreground reflecting in the Plexi. I think they really gave this photography gig to the lowest bidder this time. I always use a Black foreground when taking pictures of watches with Black/dark dials to eliminate all (or most) of the reflections and so that the dial's color is true and not artificially altered by whatever is reflecting on the crystal. (And I am no professional photographer by any stretch of the imagination..). They could have done a way better job with this one...
Totally agree. You might have grounds for requesting a cancellation of the sale based on active deception.
Whilst I find it hard to like the original post, as it’s sharing a somewhat disappointing matter... I would really like to thank you for your openness and the big learning opportunity you provide to others, like me. So, thanks for sharing, @airansun! Oh... and it still is a pretty watch, imho!
I think you done good. It’s a beautiful piece that not many will be able own. Too bad it came with a little disappointment but what the hell doesn't
I had a similar (bad) experience with Sotheby's, but as a seller/consignor. The listing included a poor description of the piece and the photos were rather disappointing (no movement pics even though it was easily accessible).
this is a great post, thanks for sharing a bunch of hard-earned lessons here regarding buying at auction -NEVER buy a watch you have not seen in the metal, or -have someone you personally know and trust that has seen in hand (who can take pictures in natural light), or -its an auction house (like bukowki's) where the pictures are consistent and some "risk" around the photos not being 100% accurate is in the price -if a watch is not described as tropical, you can assume it isn't really brown -always ask for pictures of a watch you want to bid on from the auction house that being said. . i really don't think you did badly on this one just not a steal
Some of my most amazing finds were eBay listing with bad photos... Just saying. Of course, it’s a gamble, but one tries to be educated enough to shift the odds.
of course. . .but then. . the "risk" is in the price and if you get luck you get paid for that risk that shouldn't be the case at high profile auction houses
Thank you for sharing. I was not involved with this auction but it is interesting for me to hear about your experience. As @ndgal has already touched on, they are getting a lot of reflection off the crystal, implying a less than ideal studio setup. From my experience playing around with Lightroom/Photoshop, you see how they may have altered the color palette to bring out brown in the dial and blue in the bezel. Still an attractive watch to me.
I was surprised when I opened the package, I have to admit. And I agree, I’d have expected better of Sotheby’s. But it’s already growing on me (These photos are not color altered, just my iPhone camera trying to balance...)