Quote:
Originally Posted by uncleluck
But let’s flip that around.
The seller has no doubt obtained these parts by effectively getting them free from the owners (sure I read he was a watch repairer selling off loads of lots) watches when he’s swapped them out for new ones. Some might say they should have been returned to their owner?
So why should the seller benefit from it anyway? If we want to start back tracking and reimbursing previous owners then surely we should track down the owners of the original inserts that paid rrp for them back in the day? Or maybe the new owner of the watch that the insert belongs to?
So here’s irony for you... due to the nature of this beast the person willing to pay £20k for one of these original inserts could well be buying what’s rightfully his, could have even come from the same watch from when it was swapped for a normal sub insert 25 years ago!
Yep I feel a bit for the seller and he probably is a bit sick but should we then feel even more for the previous owner?
But this logic could extend to every vintage Rolex. Don’t hear people moaning about all the £100k subs & daytonas with the same jealousy. What about the previous owners that sold them for buttons?
What about one of the old owners of a Van Gogh painting?
What about the first owner of my house (that’s now worth 4 times it’s current value)
|
I disagree. There is simple concept of fairness. Was the deal fair? It may have appeared fair.....£300 quid for some old watch parts.... But thats not the whole story.....the story is much bigger than that. I'm not expecting anyone to agree, just that they pause and consider........