Thanks Rob. A couple of points:
It's interesting to note that the sample that they chose to use
makes perfect sense. So while they do attempt to explain away the seeming dissonance of some of their "overall" gradings, they certainly had no interest in highlighting it.
There are (predictable) inconsistencies in how their "experts" interpret vague claims such as "global appreciation" and "historical interest". Let's use this Longines diver as an example.
https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/longines-ref-7042-lot-341-282?page=14
There are few vintage divers that are more desirable in terms of "global appreciation", yet there is no bump in the overall grading.
Another example:
https://catalog.antiquorum.swiss/en/lots/jaeger-lecoultre-ref-e-168-geophysic-lot-341-190?page=10
The JLC Geophysic arguably has as much or more technical and historical interest as
any vintage time-only watch, they rarely appear on the market, and yet again, no meaningful bump in the grading.
In my admittedly cynical view, this is primarily a thinly veiled ploy that allows them to arbitrarily "grade" watches at a superficially higher level than they would otherwise deserve. Consider that their grading system never
penalizes a watch for having little (if any) "global appreciation" or "historical interest". It would be more honest, and widely understandable, to have an "overall" condition grade, and then add footnotes to describe desirability and rarity, etc.