Interestingly I received a message on Instagram from someone who was a previous owner of this watch. The bracelet was on it before Hodinkee got the watch.
As a coincidence I recently met that collector for coffee as he was passing through my city, after we had discussions about watches on Instagram - and he appeared warm, gregarious and passionate.
Like several people on this thread he bought and liked watches that have a history of having been used.
I agree with
@Bill Sohne you cannot imply an intention to deceive without serious proof. A « curated » selection means just that.... someone pick things according to their taste and knowledge. Does it mean it has to be perfect? I don’t think the term implies that.
« vetting » however implies IMO a much more stringent standard which means issues should be disclosed.
The problem here is a matter of specific case.... how serious is and should be those bracelet issues be considered?
Could a reasonable expert decide they are negligible compared to the rarity and quality of the watch itself?
As the former owner tells me, « go find another one like it».
Finally, and in general— perfection is a worthy goal if you’re issuing securities, writing contracts for billion dollar mergers, or performing surgery. Because a minor detail can lead to devastating losses.
But in other walks of life it’s now well known the quest for perfection is not only inefficient, it’s counterproductive— and a pain in the rear for other human beings you interact with.
As in parenting or relationships, the standard should be »pretty damn good », or «good enough».
If you can’t afford imperfection in watches and your dream is the possession of perfection— tough luck, maybe you’ve just been priced out of the market.
@sdre with respect have you even tried— or anyone on this thread - to contact Hodinkee to ask them «is the bracelet original to the watch » and see what they reply?