Thanks!
I was just making sure it wasn't 20% premium + 24% VAT

 

Was eyeing the 137, but somehow to me the pic appears to show the top right of the case to be over polished.


Chye

 

Lot 137 is damn cool.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I feel like many auction houses would be better served by curating fewer lots. 333 lots in this WoK auction, and over 200 of them (for me) aren't interesting at all. The best auction I've ever followed along as a spectator was the Start-Stop-Reset auction by Phillips, and that featured only 88 lots. That said, all 88 were incredible, as were the prices.

Now, I know that simple supply/demand dictates that multiple auction houses can't all pay the bills by curating less than 100 lots per auction. Quality > quantity in many aspects (especially reputation), however.

 

WOK come from a pile em high Portobello Road background, so they're not really in the "curating" territory IMO.

 

Which is why I like them

 

Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to purchase when they have a more curated selection. For example, there was a study involving jams, where anyone that sampled received a $1 off coupon. On Day 1, there were 24 jams to choose from; on Day 2, there were 6. 10 times (!!) as much jam was purchased on Day 2, with 1/4 as much selection. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...0).pdf&usg=AFQjCNHV5Ndq0udhp5M8C_VFu1u106jBMg

What does this mean? Seemingly that auction houses would be better served by having fewer lots; however, maybe collectors would be better served to browse auctions with more lots in order to score lower prices...

 

So I just got this from WOK:

 

Does that mean we have to remove all the images of WOK auctions from OF as well?

 

They contacted you via Instagram? Wow, they really mean business

 

Yes, there is more with court threats. But I am at a loss to know what they are trying to protect, or what I said to upset them.

 

Seriously?!?! What defamatory remarks? If anything you've been promoting and advertising for them

 

Well now, that's rather silly of them.

I'm sure I've no need to tell a man of your perspicacity that you have the ready defence of "honest comment" to any threat they may bring. While they might very well ask you to take down images from their catalogue or website, there is nothing to prevent you from linking through to the same.

That said, all they have actually managed to do is mildly annoy a large number of collectors who, I am sure, regularly make purchases from them. That's the silly part.

(You have a blog separate to speedmaster101?)

 

Well I have removed the images - if they are upset by the use of the images then that seems fair, they do own them.

 

Here's a simplified guide to copyright infringement on the interweb as far as the IPO is concerned: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf

It comes with the standard disclaimers of only being opinion etc but it's a good read if you ever find yourself unable to sleep.

 

What a shame they have taken this stance.
I don't get how they can see "mr Speedmaster" posting basically a free advert for there sale, as derogatory

 

I think someone at WoK is having a bad day as this is quite a short sighted move on their part.

As long as your commentary isn't made out of malice and anything commentary about a watch is made reasonably and based on something substantive, you have nothing to worry about.

What a silly controversy.

 

Thank you at @jimmyd13

Here from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Guidance

Exceptions to copyright

Criticism, review and reporting current events
Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of reporting current events is allowed for any type of copyright work other than a photograph. In each of these cases, a sufficient acknowledgement will be required.

As stated, a photograph cannot be reproduced for the purpose of reporting current events. The intention of the law is to prevent newspapers or magazines reproducing photographs for reporting current events which have appeared in competitor’s publications.

 

Time for scorched earth, @Spacefruit

 

Oh...it must be time for the Pub in UK:


To be followed by:



Nothing yet....