- Posts
- 54
- Likes
- 36
Apollo13
·Well it gets 10x worse when certain companies start handing out supposed “proofs” backing certain Frankens out there...
Speedy Tuesday – A Blue Dial Speedmaster 105.003 On Auction
- Posts
- 676
- Likes
- 1,053
Cad290
·No. People don’t go to prison for this sort of thing.
- Posts
- 2,498
- Likes
- 7,577
sdre
·As a collector, and someone who really want to enjoy Omega as brand; I am dumbfounded.
- Posts
- 563
- Likes
- 1,356
chows99
·It is such fishy behaviour that will lead to an ultimate downfall where people lose trust and faith in the brand.
I hope Omega does not keep mum and be open and issue a statement to clarify once and for all.
I hope Omega does not keep mum and be open and issue a statement to clarify once and for all.
- Posts
- 15
- Likes
- 13
Seth
·So finally,
Considering the papers have been faked, what does it tell about the extract?
I mean, if you fake papers you can do it properly and match them with the extract (thus, avoiding the debate of sales date vs production date).
More generally I still find this extract weird. If I remember correctly, in Moonwatch Only they clearly tell it is a production date. If Omega knew it could be otherwise, they would have told it to the authors, right?
Considering the papers have been faked, what does it tell about the extract?
I mean, if you fake papers you can do it properly and match them with the extract (thus, avoiding the debate of sales date vs production date).
More generally I still find this extract weird. If I remember correctly, in Moonwatch Only they clearly tell it is a production date. If Omega knew it could be otherwise, they would have told it to the authors, right?
Edited:
- Posts
- 396
- Likes
- 1,540
Atalien2005
·As a collector, and someone who really want to enjoy Omega as brand; I am dumbfounded.
It is such fishy behaviour that will lead to an ultimate downfall where people lose trust and faith in the brand.
I hope Omega does not keep mum and be open and issue a statement to clarify once and for all.
I think we are blaming Omega for a problem that they never made a statement about one way or the other. I know the OP said he reached out to Omega about the extract, but he isn’t an official spokesman for the brand and could’ve misconstrued what was communicated to him.
Until Omega issues and official statement (I don’t see why they would) or the OP clarifies his statements, I would rather hold back the pitchforks intended for Omega the brand.
My final point is that everyday the lines are becoming increasely blurred between the good and the bad guys, statements intended to help that actually end up hurting, and the puppet masters behind the scenes controlling the rising prices for doctored watches.
The vintage watch world is not for the faint of heart!
- Posts
- 5,281
- Likes
- 24,089
Spacefruit
··Prolific Speedmaster HoarderIt is such fishy behaviour that will lead to an ultimate downfall where people lose trust and faith in the brand.
I hope Omega does not keep mum and be open and issue a statement to clarify once and for all.
Which brand? If you mean Christies or Phillips, then that ship sailed a while back.
What auction houses do has nothing to do with how I view the brand of Omega.
- Posts
- 1,589
- Likes
- 5,744
ICONO
·The papers were filled out with a ballpoint pen. Research when the ballpoint pen was invented. Then look at the dates of the watch. I guess forgers don’t do the same due diligence they used to.
In the auction world, the use of the ballpoint/rollerball pen has many a time stopped me from bidding. Sad really.
As a University Lecturer in 20th Century Design…I actually have, historically researched this, for use in Tutorials
László Bíró, patented his invention of the ballpoint pen, in Paris, in 1938…although it was first unveiled in 1931
In 1945, Marcel Bich, acquired that patent from Bíró, and mass produced the pen,… under his company name of BIC
BIC pens have subsequently sold more than a hundred billion pens worldwide
Perfectly feasible for post 1950 documents, to be filled in with a ballpoint pen
- Posts
- 1,009
- Likes
- 2,982
shishy
·As a University Lecturer in 20th Century Design…I actually have, historically researched this, for use in Tutorials
László Bíró, patented his invention of the ballpoint pen, in Paris, in 1938…although it was first unveiled in 1931
In 1945, Marcel Bich, acquired that patent from Bíró, and mass produced the pen,… under his company name of BIC
BIC pens have subsequently sold more than a hundred billion pens worldwide
Perfectly feasible for post 1950 documents, to be filled in with a ballpoint pen
I love this forum
- Posts
- 1,540
- Likes
- 5,575
Robert-Jan
··#SpeedyTuesdayI can categorically tell you that the papers did not come from this watch, I also know that the chrono hand and the bezel have been changed before the auction which never saw it selling?
How do I know this you ask? Well that's simple, I know the owner of it before he sold it to the present owner who put it in for auction. I also have photos of the watch before he sold it, he says it never had papers at all they have been added at a later date!
Phillips even threatened the guy with legal action!
You do the maths!
I have the same info from the same guy (after we published). In the end, I don't mind the bezel and hand being replaced by a time correct one (the ones on the watch looked like sh^* in the past), but adding the booklet and box is just silly. And Phillips knows this is the case, so I just wonder why they didn't just pull out the watch from auction or relist it with this information.
RJ
- Posts
- 1,540
- Likes
- 5,575
Robert-Jan
··#SpeedyTuesdayThe extract says 'production date' not, 'whatever date we happen to have'. This whole episode stinks. People pay their 120CHF or whatever on the basis that they are getting in return the day their watch was born. Usually it seems that is what happens, here all of a sudden there is a new definition of production date. After, what, 20 years of issuing extracts, and it seems no previous Soleil dial ones. Even without Darren's comments above (which rather joins the dots) it leaves a bad taste. Are you sure it is an official statement or just some Philips bs?
I am very sure it is an official statement as I receive it from Omega myself. I also have no reason to doubt this, the fact that Phillips (or the current owner) added a booklet and box himself doesn't change that. I see no blame for Omega in this case, they only saw the watch, not the rest! Phillips should have known better and either give it back to the owner or relist the item with a proper description and without box and booklet stated as original to the watch.
- Posts
- 9,960
- Likes
- 15,640
padders
··Oooo subtitles!I agree with you that blame for the attempted deception resides solely with either Philips and/or the seller, but Omega's actions have raised more questions than they have answered. You used the phrase, 'they only saw the watch, not the rest' which is interesting. Does this imply that this extract was influenced by inspecting the watch in hand I wonder? There is already a debate on here, prompted by the fact that auction houses seem to be able to get extracts produced where mere mortals can't, that discusses whether an extract is actually that: a statement of the information held by Omega in it's archives or something else, something more like an appraisal of current condition. I would imagine most people applying for an extract think they are getting the former.
Two thing happened here which together raised eyebrows. Firstly interpretation of 'Production Date'. If all Omega have in the archive for a watch is some kind of delivery or payment date then they should say so, there is a comments section on the extract where it could be noted. Secondly an extract was issued here for a Blue Soleil dial suggesting it was original factory fit. Seemingly the first ever issued (at least to the knowledge of this forum, where many such dials reside, it seems). Due to the ambiguous nature of the extract process, should it really be inferred it was factory fit or could it in fact be the case that just like the production date, Omega don't actually have concrete evidence that this dial was fitted from new and are going out on a limb for a favoured client?
All points for debate perhaps, but I note your article on the watch in question has a paragraph entitled 'Compete Package', you must agree that this is probably not the case!
Two thing happened here which together raised eyebrows. Firstly interpretation of 'Production Date'. If all Omega have in the archive for a watch is some kind of delivery or payment date then they should say so, there is a comments section on the extract where it could be noted. Secondly an extract was issued here for a Blue Soleil dial suggesting it was original factory fit. Seemingly the first ever issued (at least to the knowledge of this forum, where many such dials reside, it seems). Due to the ambiguous nature of the extract process, should it really be inferred it was factory fit or could it in fact be the case that just like the production date, Omega don't actually have concrete evidence that this dial was fitted from new and are going out on a limb for a favoured client?
All points for debate perhaps, but I note your article on the watch in question has a paragraph entitled 'Compete Package', you must agree that this is probably not the case!
Edited:
- Posts
- 2,834
- Likes
- 9,175
- Posts
- 1,540
- Likes
- 5,575
Robert-Jan
··#SpeedyTuesdayHi,
I don't know if the fact that they saw the watch influenced the extract and I refrain from making assumptions there. I have been focusing on the extract information as such at first. Only when I received messages from a guy (after publishing the article) who had the watch before, in a different condition and no additional things, the box and paper question arose. Omega had to dig into the microfiches to get the movement production date, which is all they had on this one. Then, some agents (as stated in the article) were able to pay after an x period for the watches (batches!) and then the payment date was used in the books.
Yes, perhaps they could. But I've seen the system they work with, and it is rather "Field" based, not like a Word template or anything. However, the original books had this date listed as production date, so it might just have been a manual copy/paste of a date that was in the (paper) books in the archives. But, this is an assumption, which could be very wrong as well.
The rest I don't know, the extract normally states information of how the watch left the factory and not how it looks today. That's the blue print or concept of the extracts, I have no reason to doubt this based on this auction.
Correct, but as written this article was published before the information reached us. I addressed it accordingly.
I agree with you that blame for the attempted deception resides solely with either Philips and/or the seller, but Omega's actions have raised more questions than they have answered. You used the phrase, 'they only saw the watch, not the rest' which is interesting. Does this imply that this extract was influenced by inspecting the watch in hand I wonder? There is already a debate on here, prompted by the fact that auction houses seem to be able to get extracts produced where mere mortals can't, that discusses whether an extract is actually that: a statement of the information held by Omega in it's archives or something else, something more like an appraisal of current condition. I would imagine most people applying for an extract think they are getting the former.
I don't know if the fact that they saw the watch influenced the extract and I refrain from making assumptions there. I have been focusing on the extract information as such at first. Only when I received messages from a guy (after publishing the article) who had the watch before, in a different condition and no additional things, the box and paper question arose. Omega had to dig into the microfiches to get the movement production date, which is all they had on this one. Then, some agents (as stated in the article) were able to pay after an x period for the watches (batches!) and then the payment date was used in the books.
Two thing happened here which together raised eyebrows. Firstly interpretation of 'Production Date'. If all Omega have in the archive for a watch is some kind of delivery or payment date then they should say so, there is a comments section on the extract where it could be noted. Secondly an extract was issued here for a Blue Soleil dial suggesting it was original factory fit. Seemingly the first ever issued (at least to the knowledge of this forum, where many such dials reside, it seems). Due to the ambiguous nature of the extract process, should it really be inferred it was factory fit or could it in fact be the case that just like the production date, Omega don't actually have concrete evidence that this dial was fitted from new and are going out on a limb for a favoured client?
Yes, perhaps they could. But I've seen the system they work with, and it is rather "Field" based, not like a Word template or anything. However, the original books had this date listed as production date, so it might just have been a manual copy/paste of a date that was in the (paper) books in the archives. But, this is an assumption, which could be very wrong as well.
The rest I don't know, the extract normally states information of how the watch left the factory and not how it looks today. That's the blue print or concept of the extracts, I have no reason to doubt this based on this auction.
All points for debate perhaps, but I note your article on the watch in question has a paragraph entitled 'Compete Package', you must agree that this is probably not the case!
Correct, but as written this article was published before the information reached us. I addressed it accordingly.
- Posts
- 1,540
- Likes
- 5,575
Robert-Jan
··#SpeedyTuesday
They basically did. I think it is now up to Phillips.
- Posts
- 9,960
- Likes
- 15,640
padders
··Oooo subtitles!Ironically if it weren't for the bs papers, we wouldn't now be having this debate about the real nature of the date on extracts...
- Posts
- 54
- Likes
- 36
Apollo13
·to.
As a University Lecturer in 20th Century Design…I actually have, historically researched this, for use in Tutorials
László Bíró, patented his invention of the ballpoint pen, in Paris, in 1938…although it was first unveiled in 1931
In 1945, Marcel Bich, acquired that patent from Bíró, and mass produced the pen,… under his company name of BIC
BIC pens have subsequently sold more than a hundred billion pens worldwide
Perfectly feasible for post 1950 documents, to be filled in with a ballpoint pen
The ink on the papers looks more like rollerball than it does Bíró which would make it definitely a fake. It was actually my mistake for confusing the two names. I assumed they were synonymous and interchangeable.
- Posts
- 54
- Likes
- 36
Apollo13
·Funnily enough the same was said by somebody involved with the selling of this piece... but I’m not about to start a he said/ she said situation.
- Posts
- 54
- Likes
- 36
Apollo13
·I don’t trust extracts. Pity if omega followed suit. If anyone honestly believes the Patek Senza Luna is a real authentic Patek, they should probably stop collecting high end vintage. The same goes for countless models I have seen creep into auction from time to time.
- Posts
- 15
- Likes
- 13
Seth
·@Robert-Jan
Why do you have no problem trashing Christie's Skipper calling them "fraudulent" on instagram because of a photoshoped picture but stay put about Philipps' Speedmaster faking box and paper? You heart should be closer to Omega.
Why do you have no problem trashing Christie's Skipper calling them "fraudulent" on instagram because of a photoshoped picture but stay put about Philipps' Speedmaster faking box and paper? You heart should be closer to Omega.
