The wisdom in this one post from you should be read by everyone that begins the journey of watch buying.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/condition-condition-condition-and-other-pieces-of-advice.1716/

 

I fail to see, if NO ONE can tell the difference between original and correct, how it undermines the TPA process, nor further, how it would significantly matter to anyone buying a watch. If something categorically cannot be proven, where’s the debate?

 

I agree, but then let's lose the "original" classification...

 

Totally agree. Basically meaningless.

Let’s say Grandpa Joe, who sells you this “untouched” watch, swears up and down it’s never been molested. Could he have forgotten? Could he be wrong? We can never really know, and there are no DNA tests that associate a watch with its parts. But, if it came from the same era, looks like it should, is worn or not worn commensurately with the rest of the watch, that just has to be good enough. And it should be.

Here’s what dedicated collectors should do: when they buy a new watch, have a certified Omega dealer seal the watch in a plastic sleeve with one of those old-fashioned wax seals that they used to put on envelopes to insure privacy. It will have the initials of the employee, who of course has been bonded. The plastic at least allows you to take it out and admire it, since you can’t wear it.

Then, when you eventually go to sell it, you can say, “untouched, all original.” But of course some guy on this very forum, 30 years from now, will tell you about the fake wax seals that have been creeping into the market, in addition to the scammers that found out how to unseal, and re-seal the package without anyone knowing.

Lord, does it ever end? I think not...

 

I have had a number of watches in my shop that have been "in the family" since new and were "never serviced" that clearly had been serviced. Family history is notoriously unreliable IMO.

 

I may be missing the point, but sometimes a claim of "original" can be disproven. This is occasionally seen for highly collectible watches that have appeared at auction multiple times with subtle changes and upgrades. While the alterations may be correct, reference to previous auctions can show that they are not original.

Maybe this is the point you are making with the suggestion that we stop using the term "original".

 

One can certainly prove unoriginal; I was referring to the folly of proving “original.”

 

I have been in the camp advocating for an objective grading system. But recently i have been discussing my own watch's condition with a member and it's pretty darn hard, even to distinguish between just five categories. It certainly seems possible in theory but it sure is hard in practice.

The main driver for me for a TPA/grading system is this concept of originality. Lots of good discussions around whether or not it's important. But when i read that this highly experienced OP is scared to consider buying a Daytona, that makes me really nervous (not that i would drop that kind of money on one.)

Closer to home, my local dealer who has 30 years of experience is still nervous about vintage speedmasters. That is unsettling.

I understand the need to be educated and do your own due diligence. Totally get it. I am worried that a clever forgerer will be able to surpass my ability to know the difference.

Maybe it just comes down to what you're saying here. If no one can tell that it isn't really original, then good enough and acceptable. That is probably the reality but it seems to give an incentive to forgers. Still, seems a little sad. For any collection, originality is what it's all about, beat to shit or not. Otherwise I am happy with my brand new watch.

At first I thought it was only academic because it would only apply to the expensive vintage models. But it seems like the least expensive banged up models are also susceptible. Maybe even more so based on frankens that come out of the phillipines and elsewhere that are cheaper to buy and throw together. They are easier to spot but who knows as the replacement parts get better and better. I thought I would be immune by my budget but not so sure anymore.

No new knowledge to add, just couch therapy from the perspective of a noob.

 

Then there’s the issue of correct, but not appropriate. Sometimes you find the absolute correct replacement part, only to see that it’s not in keeping with the overall wear and aesthetic of the watch as a whole.

I learned this the hard way. I made an attempt to improve the look of one my Speedmasters by fitting a correct but less worn bezel. But the upshot was, it just ended up looking out of place with the rest of the watch. It takes a careful eye to replace even authentic parts from another watch or stock without losing aesthetic integrity.

 

Then I think you will be disappointed in any system that comes out. I guess it really depends on what you mean by "originality" and "original".

If you mean it as, for example, the set of hands that came on the watch when it was bought new, unless the watch has been in a safe somewhere and sat unused (thinking of some of MSN's examples), no one can tell you that with certainty. They can give you an educated guess, but no one can say that the hands that are on there weren't replaced early in the life of a watch for some reason.

To me this issue of "original to the watch when it came from the factory" really is not important. Like claims of "unpolished" I would never pay a premium for a watch that was advertised as being "all original" in the way I've described. If the parts are period "correct" and look good, what difference does it make if those were the hands that were on the watch when it was first bought? Certainly if someone has swapped hands out, and claims they are original (and asks a premium because of it) you would want to know, but aside from that, why is it important to you?

To me, claims that can't be proven are mostly worthless...so I will buy based on other things that are observable.

Cheers, Al

 

Yes.

If pressed, and the back-story seems really authentic, and the watch by appearances looks good inside and out by someone who knows what they’re looking at, I might concede “likely original.” Watch folks have to start talking more like doctors - they never speak in absolutes...

 

How come @M'Bob doesn't have a handle?

 

Sometimes...

 

“I want to come with you to Alderaan. There’s nothing for me here now. I want to learn the ways of the Force, and become a Jedi like my father.”

 

My wife has one for me. Unprintable here...

 

We needed some illustrative pics here so I ran to my mom's house to snap this-
A 60s SM 300 and a 60s Amazing Spider-Man

How would we grade this SM300? It has an original bakelite bezel NOS but not the one it came out of the factory with which is in much worse shape. Do you guys value originality or aesthetic?

 

i used to own a pretty beat up 165.024. Dial had dirty lume, and the bezel was all knocked up and cracked.

Looks original (guess no one bothered to touch it up) but i enjoyed it. Truth be told, every time i looked at other examples of 165.024, i often wished that i had that nice, even colored light yellow or pumpkin on the markers and hands; that i see on IG or even pristine examples.

i like it that it was original afaik, but yet the aesthetic leaves me wanting more.

 

My point is the TPA process is undermined if the issuer insist on certifying a watch as original when they can't back it up.

This.