Who the f*** is doing the polishing over at Watchfinder

Posts
241
Likes
378
Hi all,

having monitored Rolex 1016's for a long time and now finally owning one in nice condition (see different thread), I just wanted to "vent" about the 1016's seen at Watchfinder. Who the heck is polishing these into oblivion??

There are 4 on sale right now and I can't imagine that they were worse before they were polished by them.

See here, from worst to "best". 1 and 2 are just ridiculous - no comment needed. 3 and 4 have a little bit of substance left in the lugs, but they completely rounded off the bezels.

1. 2.
3.
4.
 
Posts
5,464
Likes
52,163
Definitely a situation where the amount of polishing can be measured in grams 馃槬
 
Posts
241
Likes
378
priming
Excuse my ignorance (not native English speaker), but what is "priming" in this context?
 
Posts
6,256
Likes
9,814
90% of the customers of Watchfinders will be people who just want a watch. They have no clue that these watches are frowned upon by collectors.
 
Posts
241
Likes
378
90% of the customers of Watchfinders will be people who just want a watch. They have no clue that these watches are frowned upon by collectors.
Ah, you mean that the Wf customers are "primed" to just want any Rolex 1016 without considering condition.

Every Explorer overpolished increases the value of the unpolished ones.
That's a good point from the owner's perspective
 
Posts
6,256
Likes
9,814
Ah, you mean that the Wf customers are "primed" to just want any Rolex 1016 without considering condition.
I think most of them have little knowledge so the shinier the better
 
Posts
241
Likes
378
I think most of them have little knowledge so the shinier the better
I think you're right about the average Wf customer. But people who look for a 1016 are probably different types. I guess that's why the 1016 at Wf aren't selling despite their relatively low prices...
 
Posts
241
Likes
378
btw, also "interesting" that they sell a "frog foot" 1016 from the year 2000...
 
Posts
86
Likes
119
Wow, that's terrible.

What is should be vs the 1. you posted...