There was so much talk in NYC a few years ago among high end Rolex collectors about this watch and its restoration that I simply assumed it was common knowledge within the big bucks collecting community, and certainly among the high rollers who might be buying this sort of stuff at auction. Heck I even heard discussion about the watch among high end collectors in the Philippines. I wouldn't be so quick to assume whoever was bidding on it wasn't aware as well. I have not read about any big legal blowout between buyer and seller afterwards. To me my reaction to this article seems justified. A whole lot of noise but little substance. If the buyer was unaware and felt hoodwinked, there would be much more to read about it.
It may have been common knowledge among the groups that you mentioned, but it seems to be news to many people on this forum. While I think that the noise-to-substance ratio is debatable, I do not think that there is any debate that the article brought this issue to a wider audience. It is difficult to see how that is a bad thing. Sure, the article could have been written differently, but that says nothing of its overall value in terms of communicating certain key pieces of information.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume whoever was bidding on it wasn't aware as well.
I am not sure who would assume this, given that Phillips published an interview with Goldberger, in which he mentioned that certain parts were replaced, prior to the auction. In my view, whether the people bidding were aware or not is not the primary issue. The primary issue is that Phillips was slow to publicly disclose that parts had been replaced. The significance of this arguably extends beyond the subject watch/lot. It calls into question Phillips' practice of transparency about the originality/condition of its lots. This assumes that Phillips is capable of, and motivated to, thoroughly assess the originality/condition of its lots.
A topic that is not discussed at length in the article, is the way in which Phillips ultimately disclosed that parts had been replaced, namely via an interview with Goldberger and the founder of Children Action. In my view, it is very strange that such significant information about the top lot would first come to light in an interview, mixed in with questions such as, “
Phillips: Bernard, tell us what motivated you to found Children Action?” and “
Phillips: When and where did you meet for the first time? What did you discuss during this first encounter?” In a way, the broader focus of the interview (beyond “The Unicorn”) has the effect of downplaying the significance of the information that is being presented (i.e. that “The Unicorn” has numerous replaced parts).
Another strange aspect of the interview/disclosure is that it leaves the reader uncertain about whether or not Phillips knew the answers to its own questions. The following question seems to suggest that Phillips did know: “
Phillips: When [“The Unicorn”] was finally yours, what did you first do?” Goldberger’s answer to this question is the first and only time in the interview in which the “restoration” is addressed.
