Quote:
Originally Posted by pereztroika
Yes, from a known piece of work. The issue here is the refusal of the auction house to disclose the facts. They are still falsely claiming the watch is original.
Cheers
Jose
|
Thanks for the reply.
Is this the line you don’t like?
“ The yellow-gold case with a screw-down back is impeccably preserved in its original condition, with the spotlight naturally falling on the exceptionally well-preserved Paul Newman Lemon dial.”
And perhaps feel that it could have read something like “the dial and movement may have been replaced before the current ownership”? But note they are talking about the case being original rather than the whole preservation?
You’ve then pointed out inconsistencies to the auction house and they haven’t updated the listing or are taking a different view (either mistakenly, deliberately or with some other knowledge)? And this perhaps is the second issue with them?
But let’s say hypothetically they had extra knowledge that you weren’t aware of then why should they have to explain to someone their position verses saying nothing or that if you don’t like the presentation then don’t bid on it?
Is any of this option rather than something we can know with certainty? And yet they are probably ignoring conventional understanding.
For example consider the space dwellers which I also think didn’t exist. Given that explorers weren’t flying off the shelves couldn’t it be possible that these space dweller dials ended up in cases that were already at retailers as part of some promotion. That could explain a range of case numbers? Together with loose dials that ended up in various cases. I’m not saying this is what happened just that there are other possibilities out there.
I don’t want to sound like I disagree with you as I don’t. I’m just raising questions rather than jumping on the bandwagon.