- Posts
- 2,520
- Likes
- 17,831
Sotheby’s Lot 38 105.002-62, Aug 23 update; AKA the stories photos tell us
- Posts
- 891
- Likes
- 2,997
AAAKK
·I get it. Auction buyers are suppose to do their due diligence, inspect, ask all the right questions etc etc. That being said, f#@k those clowns at Sotheby’s that ok'd that catalog pic. They knew exactly how deceptive they were being.
But still very nice and something that I'd wear the hell out of. Hope you enjoy it
But still very nice and something that I'd wear the hell out of. Hope you enjoy it
- Posts
- 2,443
- Likes
- 4,231
wsfarrell
·Those hands are special...
- Posts
- 639
- Likes
- 3,066
verithingeoff
·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...)
- Posts
- 10,654
- Likes
- 51,900
Walrus
·Oh yes it looks absolutely stunning
- Posts
- 5,860
- Likes
- 16,788
- Posts
- 199
- Likes
- 440
snarkq
·i think your watch is quite attractive!
- Posts
- 2,520
- Likes
- 17,831
airansun
·
- Posts
- 1,301
- Likes
- 2,576
queriver
·If, as it appears, Sotheby's manipulated the image and/or setting to "brown" the dial and "blue" the bezel, that is simply unconscionable. Where there is no reflection off the crystal it does appear to be a black dial but it is immoral for Sotheby's to use such trickery. I'm not a photographer but it looks like the use of a blue background might have been an attempt to trick the eye viz the bezel colour, additional to some digital "enhancement" to get the blue bezel. It looks like the suede (?) strap might have a blueish tone, particularly looking at the thread colour. If Sotheby's shipped the watch with the strap shown in their image it would be interesting to see whether it is blue toned or plain black.
Despite this, it's a very nice watch. Congrats!
Despite this, it's a very nice watch. Congrats!
Edited:
- Posts
- 35
- Likes
- 94
kokose7en
·Thank you for sharing this. It really helps put watch pictures into perspective. This auction was very exciting. I was off that Friday from work and was able to be part of the action. To add to this, i did request for more pictures for Lot 22 “Fap” watch. I emailed at 8:51AM and they sent images at 9:57AM. Just over an hour, right before the auction started. Looks to be a phone camera and gives different view of the watch. If anyone wanted to know
- Posts
- 5,059
- Likes
- 15,583
eugeneandresson
·Thanks for sharing @airansun .
I have only once bought a watch at auction, and it came as I expected, as the pics depicted, all good. That was because the pictures were taken with a phone (most likely a modern phone) outside in direct sunshine, lighting (sun) from behind the phone...so fully exposed to light. So good watches can be bought out of hand (as you know from being an eBay hunter) from an auction. But these Sotheby pictures boggle my mind. No matter how hard I try, I know my camera will not be able to cock up colors to this extent, differently per watch in the same setup (feel free to look at my past sales listings...I don’t have a professional grade camera, and it’s quite old and obsolete already). This ‘differently per watch’ tells me each photo was tweaked individually, in e.g photoshop, and it’s clearly done nefariously, as in this example the guy tweaking should be able to see that the watch in picture clearly looks nothing like reality. There should be laws against this.
This also can explain the overall lackluster results of the auction : most watches most probably presented much worse in the hand than in these catalog pics.
Congrats on another beautiful 002. Sounds like you went into it with the right mindset and eyes wide open 👍
I have only once bought a watch at auction, and it came as I expected, as the pics depicted, all good. That was because the pictures were taken with a phone (most likely a modern phone) outside in direct sunshine, lighting (sun) from behind the phone...so fully exposed to light. So good watches can be bought out of hand (as you know from being an eBay hunter) from an auction. But these Sotheby pictures boggle my mind. No matter how hard I try, I know my camera will not be able to cock up colors to this extent, differently per watch in the same setup (feel free to look at my past sales listings...I don’t have a professional grade camera, and it’s quite old and obsolete already). This ‘differently per watch’ tells me each photo was tweaked individually, in e.g photoshop, and it’s clearly done nefariously, as in this example the guy tweaking should be able to see that the watch in picture clearly looks nothing like reality. There should be laws against this.
This also can explain the overall lackluster results of the auction : most watches most probably presented much worse in the hand than in these catalog pics.
Congrats on another beautiful 002. Sounds like you went into it with the right mindset and eyes wide open 👍
Edited:
- Posts
- 7,809
- Likes
- 35,452
cristos71
·Unfortunately your watch looks absolutely nothing like the auction pictures, personally I'd kick up a fuss and return it due to their deceptive practices.
- Posts
- 233
- Likes
- 394
Basset Hound
·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.
I quite agree. I’ve bought many watches on eBay and you take the gamble as you don’t know the seller and the price you pay reflects this.
What this teaches me is that the same approach should be taken with an auction house which is something I didn’t know. I (perhaps naively) thought that Sotheby’s would ensure that their catalogue photographs accurately depicted the colour of the dial and bezel.
I’m not surprised that the watch is growing on you! I like it very much.
- Posts
- 2,520
- Likes
- 17,831
airansun
·Unfortunately your watch looks absolutely nothing like the auction pictures, personally I'd kick up a fuss and return it due to their deceptive practices.
The older I get, the less inclined I am to kick up a fuss. If I didn’t like the watch, I might have kicked up a fuss.
You know, Sotheby’s made an announcement just before the live auction for lot 34, that the bezel was not blue, despite this catalog photo:
So, they knew by the time of the auction that there was a problem with all the auction catalog photos.
I (perhaps naively) thought that Sotheby’s would ensure that their catalogue photographs accurately depicted the colour of the dial and bezel.
Me too. At least close to accurate.
Edited:
- Posts
- 7,809
- Likes
- 35,452
cristos71
·The older I get, the less inclined I am to kick up a fuss. If I didn’t like the watch, I might have kicked up a fuss.
Of course it's up to you whether you like the watch or not, my point is the watch you bought doesn't look much, or anything, like the watch you thought you were buying. I mean in the photo's from them it has a dark brown dial and an attractive lume plot colour. It's not like the auction pictures made the watch look worse, in fact they made it look significantly better which was a clear deception implemented to raise the selling price. For me the principle of the matter wouldn't let me accept that.
- Posts
- 2,520
- Likes
- 17,831
airansun
·Thank you for sharing this. It really helps put watch pictures into perspective. This auction was very exciting. I was off that Friday from work and was able to be part of the action. To add to this, i did request for more pictures for Lot 22 “Fap” watch. I emailed at 8:51AM and they sent images at 9:57AM. Just over an hour, right before the auction started. Looks to be a phone camera and gives different view of the watch. If anyone wanted to know
So, for posterity, here is the photo they sent you and below is their photo from the catalog
I actually think Sotheby’s photos did a disservice to most of the watches, mine included. Just compare my photo of the caseback (top) with their photo of it (bottom)
For me the principle of the matter wouldn't let me accept that.
I’ve had other lessons from buying auction watches, I just didn’t figure I’d learn this lesson from them.
I apologize for the lack of movement shots up until now. Top are mine and bottom is theirs.
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,616
- Likes
- 3,857
S.H.
·Beautiful watch! I also agree with what has been said, those pictures in the catalog were unethically worked on imho. I've had much better luck buying blurry or bad pictures on ebay...
- Posts
- 272
- Likes
- 224
Taybharr
·So, they knew by the time of the auction that there was a problem with all the auction catalog photos.
Very interesting...I wonder why they elected to do that for the pulsation bezel and not for your watch?
So, for posterity, here is the photo they sent you and below is their photo from the catalog
This one also appears to have a bluish hue in the catalog but not in the metal. This makes me believe they applied a preset color palette in Lightroom for many of the watches. This watch, the OP watch, and the pulsation bezel show a bit of a pattern. Can anyone else who participated in the auction provide contrasting photos?
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,983
JwRosenthal
·As a professional documentary photographer I am sickened by what they did-those images are 100% doctored- perhaps not meant to deceive but defiantly to enhance features and make the watches appear more dramatically. We have an expression when using photoshop-just becuase you can doesn’t mean you should.
In my line of work, our document needs to be to forensic standards. We shoot all art or objects with color charts, original out of camera images are banked as DNG’s and not manipulated in any way. Post production work is done on a copied DNG and only saved as Tiff to avoid any whif if impropriety.
If you are truly disturbed by this and feel deceived, I would ask to see their camera raw files- if they can’t or are not willing to produce them, then that should call into question their practices.
In my line of work, our document needs to be to forensic standards. We shoot all art or objects with color charts, original out of camera images are banked as DNG’s and not manipulated in any way. Post production work is done on a copied DNG and only saved as Tiff to avoid any whif if impropriety.
If you are truly disturbed by this and feel deceived, I would ask to see their camera raw files- if they can’t or are not willing to produce them, then that should call into question their practices.
- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,983
JwRosenthal
·Looking back on the comparison images we are also looking at a difference in color temperature. Yours are all shot under tungsten light (warm) or your phone/camera is applying a warmer color white balance, and theirs is definitly cold/blue. Differences in color temp makes a huge difference in appearance but regardless, any photographer worth their salt would have balanced using a grey-card and the end result would be absolutely color neutral and not that cosmic blue shit in those pictures.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 34
- Views
- 10K
- Posts
- 11
- Views
- 4K
