That the rarity of an object tends to correlate with its value (especially with collectibles) doesn’t seem a principle needing defense.
😒 See e.g., etc.:
Look, at this point people are arguing that rarity of a collectible and the veracity of its history are independent or (to them) unimportant to its value ...
... which very unusual positions I might find interesting to explore, were the positions at this point not so palpably motivated by something other than genuine discourse.
Weird dig, Al.
He is a graphic designer in his day job, made and offers the high res image for free (anyone can print it), but at one point in time (now 3+ years ago I think) had 50 prints he sold out quickly as they were “signed by Maria Teresa Panerai in Giuseppe Panerai’s very own laboratory at the historical site of the Villino Panerai (Panerai Villa) in Florence.”
Good to know I guess - I have heard the handle before, but I know nothing about this guy (other than what you just posted). I am simply pointing out that the only article I've ever read by this guy, happens to have some stuff for sale at the bottom. In an article that is criticizing product placement...seemed ironic to say the least.
I don’t think anyone is saying this is right, but it’s not surprising in the watch world.
Okay hang on there. I've let the veiled personal attacks you've made in this thread slide so far, but I draw the line at this one mate. I've said no such thing, so please be careful with the accusations you throw around. I've never said this was acceptable, only that in respect to the value of the watch it has no impact...
And I do want to say, if we are focused on real evidence here, there's been no evidence presented in that article that categorically refuted the claim that the watch auctioned was the one Stallone wore through the whole movie.
I'm guessing based on your posts that you are under the impression that this article is all new information to the market. It isn't. So I would say that those who would be bidding on this already know the history - it's been out there for a number of years, and the article in question actually illustrates that pretty well.”
This is why I called him a "researcher" when in reality he's more of a compiler of already known information.
Speaking of “interpreting everything people say in this thread in it's most extreme fashion”... allow me to clarify what seems an otherwise obvious or generous reading of my quote to which you’re taking offense, given that the topic of this discussion is whether Stallone’s lies were intended or did affect the value:
“You and @Foo2rama maintain it doesn’t matter if Stallone lied, [DELETE: because] [INSERT: to the extent] there is no change in value to the watch resulting from Stallone’s lies.”
If the difference between “because” vs “to the extent” is all it took for you to read a “veiled personal attack” vs. your exact point, then I apologize.
No veiled personal attacks intended toward you, @Archer
See, this is an example of why things in this thread seem so “weird,” as another put it. First, there is more proffered evidence than what you recite; but more importantly and second, there is ample evidence that (1) Stallone did not obtain the watch how he claims to have, and (2) he and Phillips omitted the material fact that 5-6 of such watches were on set, which above lies or omissions then call into the question the veracity of separate issue of whether this is the “one” he wore “throughout” filming as he claims.
Show me the prior article, especially one before the auction, that makes your assertions here clear and anything other than strange.
@cvalue13,Here's another POV.
What if nobody is lying? What If he did find that watch, and liked it, and selected it for use and said so to the producers and then the producers where like OK. And bought 5 of them (if they where not expensive) IF they where expensive then they would get 5 decals for the stunt scenes rather than the real thing.
From that POV the truth is somewhat grayer. He may be saying this watch (as in this model) like when one of us say I like this Speedy because it went to the moon and it's an amazing achievement....no, it didn't, your speedy didn't leave Jersey.
So, Stallone says I found it, we used this for the movie. Yes we used several units for some key scenes but this is the main watch I used.
That's basically the same as Daniel Craig saying he treasures and still has his original PO from Casino Royale. The watch he wore in the movie. The titanium specially made so it would be lighter when doing stunts.
But wait, there are like 6 more spread around Omega display museums that claim the same exact thing!! "Yes, says Craig, but this is my watch, the one I wore....I did wear others, but this one was the main squeeze."
And to Al's point (if you take a moment to actually read through his literal argument) Whilst the argument may verge on the limit of veracity, and you can say it's a lie to the world, or you can say it's an alternative truth, or you can say it is true...in a sense. Or you can say it's totally true.... to a buyer of this particular watch it's probably worth the same $ because wether it is one of 5, or 1/1, it is Stallone's actual watch, and his story. You can poke holes everywhere but it is Stallone himself stating provenance on camera. not a guy that knows a guy that had lunch with another guy....
I don't know Jose, nor do I think he was on set while filming the movie.
We’re not disagreeing that these things happen, but instead perhaps somewhat disagreeing about whether and how much we should care and hope to do things to keep them from happening again (and to worse degrees).
Things like writing articles that, if nothing else, provide points suggesting Stallone and Phillips have some further explaining to do - were we to hold them to the same expectations applied on our own sales thread
Well, I suppose I shouldn't have deleted the follow-up sentence then. Here it is:
"Some - like Jose - care that people selling watches be honest about their descriptions; we can expect people to not lie about the nature and history of watches for sale even if it doesn’t change its monetary value."
To me this is pretty clearly comparing people here as accepting of lies, but Jose isn’t ...
Expecting the auction houses to do better is a great thing, but not really reality. At most I could hope that they would do better, but certainly don't "expect" them to. It would be nice if all sellers everywhere adhered to the same standards as we do here, but that expectation is a bit too ambitious IMO. Again, this doesn't mean I condone what these people do, or don't wish for them to do better, but being realistic, it's unlikely.
OK, I think we are confusing Nihilism with Pragmatism.
It seems obvious that your “caring” is not the same as Jose’s “caring,” in that the latter expects more from sellers and auction houses and appears to spend the bulk of his life putting his shoulder into it.
I’d say it is fair, not a personal attack, to suggest that you and Jose don’t “care” in the same way?
