The Vintage Lesson You've All Heard About...

[037]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

Well, I can't unsee it now. And it's a pretty significant difference in value from an absolute $$ sense...so there would always be that remorse around having bought something less than "100% authentic."

I'll be kicking myself for some time over this one. As a seller, I know I'd make it right. We'll see...

I missed reading the full backstory but am somewhat caught up now. Has the seller reached out to you at all or are you definitely stuck with it?

I'd almost suggest trying for the RSC route but suspect they'll hit you back with a white service dial and not red. Reds seem to be impossible now. I'm kicking myself for not grabbing one years ago when they were cheap and available.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by 037

I missed reading the full backstory but am somewhat caught up now. Has the seller reached out to you at all or are you definitely stuck with it?

I'd almost suggest trying for the RSC route but suspect they'll hit you back with a white service dial and not red. Reds seem to be impossible now. I'm kicking myself for not grabbing one years ago when they were cheap and available.

I checked in with the seller earlier today and he said he'd check in on this thread to catch up (he's three hours ahead). His only response thus far is that it shouldn't matter or affect value...

[Robtayham]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

It was described as:

"Excellent MK IV Red Dial with creamy plots and matching hands"

Re-lume wasn't disclosed. I've had the watch for about a month now.

Seller is a member here but not really a "re-seller" or known seller.

OP, while I hate that you didn’t get the watch you wanted, something about this thread makes me uncomfortable.

So he sold it ‘as is’ and didn’t use knowingly false or misleading language in his ad.

What exactly are you using as justification for a refund? How were you duped?

[Michael M.]

Dial is certainly relumed. Tritium Submariner dials from this period should not glow or react to UV.

[Michael M.]

Originally Posted by Juhuatai

You learn something new everyday. Well then, it's not outside the realm of possibility that later dials can glow!

Just an FYI. Tritium Daytona dials from inception to final production in 1988 both glowed and reacted to UV.

[Juhuatai]

Originally Posted by Michael M.

Just an FYI. Tritium Daytona dials from inception to final production in 1988 both glowed and reacted to UV.

Ah thanks Michael. I was sure that sub/explorer after 1969 wouldn't glow but I have 0 experience with daytona.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by Robtayham

OP, while I hate that you didn’t get the watch you wanted, something about this thread makes me uncomfortable.

So he sold it ‘as is’ and didn’t use knowingly false or misleading language in his ad.

What exactly are you using as justification for a refund? How were you duped?

"Duped" implies that the seller did it on purpose; I don't believe he did anything on purpose. I suppose that a guarantee of "100% authenticity" opens up a still different debate, but that is the guarantee that I'd be relying on. I would suppose that technically speaking, one could argue authenticity, but such an argument would seem in bad faith.

You definitely raise a fair point, though, and one I've spent today thinking over. I have no certainty.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by Michael M.

Dial is certainly relumed. Tritium Submariner dials from this period should not glow or react to UV.

Thank you for weighing in, Michael!

[Styles Bitchley]

Originally Posted by Robtayham

OP, while I hate that you didn’t get the watch you wanted, something about this thread makes me uncomfortable.



So he sold it ‘as is’ and didn’t use knowingly false or misleading language in his ad.



What exactly are you using as justification for a refund? How were you duped?

You don’t think sellers should disclose in an ad that a vintage watch has been relumed?

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

I would suppose that technically speaking, one could argue authenticity, but such an argument would seem in bad faith.

Meh ... if you're talking about a dealer, then yes. But if you're talking about a run-of-the-mill owner, then not everyone is an expert on lume, or even cares about it. The buyer has to bear some responsibility as well, especially in a private as-is sale. In my view, if you're going to make a fuss about something like this after the fact, then you should just buy from dealers. With private sales, there is more responsibility for the buyer to do his own homework.

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Meh ... if you're talking about a dealer, then yes. But if you're talking about a run-of-the-mill owner, then not everyone is an expert on lume, or even cares about it. The buyer has to bear some responsibility as well, especially in a private as-is sale. In my view, if you're going to make a fuss about something like this after the fact, then you should just buy from dealers. With private sales, there is more responsibility for the buyer to do his own homework.

Your point is more than fair but the sale wasn't listed "as is" at all. But it was listed as:

"All my items are guaranteed authentic and I will stand by their authenticity 100%"

Here's the original listing:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=703024

That seems to establish that he'll stand behind the watch. That said, I also want to be reasonable and fair.

[Juhuatai]

If I was in your situation, I would ask for a refund.

[Filipão]

You must get a refund of some sort. The way seller described the dial is oh so misleading.

Quote:

- Excellent MK IV Red Dia with creamy plots and matching hands

Unquote

[Robtayham]

Originally Posted by Styles Bitchley

You don’t think sellers should disclose in an ad that a vintage watch has been relumed?

I don’t think any sellers are verifying that all parts are 100% authentic Rolex. They’re not opening up the back and looking at every single part. They’re not testing the thickness of the dial paint. They’re not testing the water pressure resistance. They’re not testing the thickness of the lugs to see if it’s been polished.

I mean look at how many Threads have buyers talking about how scared they are to send a watch to RSC because they fear it might be stolen. In other words, all those buyers know they’re taking a risk when they buy second hand watches, i.e. a used watch. And yes, any watch not bought at an AD is used.

Also, look at all the ‘is it fake’ threads. Even TRF members can’t agree if a watch is fake or not.

So, no, I don’t think they’re disclosing it, because they don’t know, they can’t tell, and they’re not obligated to find out.

Let’s ask the OP, did the seller guarantee that the dial was untouched? Or did he just say it was authentic? There’s a big difference.

[1665fan]

Originally Posted by mistral

My 1971 6239 Daytona still glows for few seconds when subjected to light.
See my Avatar and attachment.

I’m not sure about that...anybody else have a 71 daytona that glows???

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by Robtayham

I don’t think any sellers are verifying that all parts are 100% authentic Rolex. They’re not opening up the back and looking at every single part. They’re not testing the thickness of the dial paint. They’re not testing the water pressure resistance. They’re not testing the thickness of the lugs to see if it’s been polished.

I mean look at how many Threads have buyers talking about how scared they are to send a watch to RSC because they fear it might be stolen. In other words, all those buyers know they’re taking a risk when they buy second hand watches, i.e. a used watch. And yes, any watch not bought at an AD is used.

Also, look at all the ‘is it fake’ threads. Even TRF members can’t agree if a watch is fake or not.

So, no, I don’t think they’re disclosing it, because they don’t know, they can’t tell, and they’re not obligated to find out.

Let’s ask the OP, did the seller guarantee that the dial was untouched? Or did he just say it was authentic? There’s a big difference.

Here's the original listing:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=703024

He did guarantee "100% authenticity." I guarantee authenticity, too, as a means of re-assuring buyers that I'll stand behind the watch; I never guarantee 100% authenticity because I am 100% certain...I do it because I will 100% stand behind the watch.

[1665fan]

I have early 80s watches that do not glow....16660

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by Robtayham

I don’t think any sellers are verifying that all parts are 100% authentic Rolex. They’re not opening up the back and looking at every single part. They’re not testing the thickness of the dial paint. They’re not testing the water pressure resistance. They’re not testing the thickness of the lugs to see if it’s been polished.



I mean look at how many Threads have buyers talking about how scared they are to send a watch to RSC because they fear it might be stolen. In other words, all those buyers know they’re taking a risk when they buy second hand watches, i.e. a used watch. And yes, any watch not bought at an AD is used.



Also, look at all the ‘is it fake’ threads. Even TRF members can’t agree if a watch is fake or not.



So, no, I don’t think they’re disclosing it, because they don’t know, they can’t tell, and they’re not obligated to find out.



Let’s ask the OP, did the seller guarantee that the dial was untouched? Or did he just say it was authentic? There’s a big difference.

Apparently seller sold the watch as “100% authentic”. A relume is by definition not authentic. If he didn’t know if it was or was not, he shouldn’t have made that statement.

And it sounds like buyer relied on his statement of 100% authentic. Now how to address the length of time between sale and discovery.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrs_LA]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

FWIW, it starts fading immediately and is completely dark within 23 seconds.

And I'm not arguing that it is or isn't a re-lume, necessarily. I assumed it was because of my own lack of information.

But it sounds like there are two separate questions at play: 1) Is there a possibility that it still glows? 2) Is this specific example a re-lume?

As to the first question, there are numerous experts with numerous opinions, obviously. As to the second, I don't know and can't tell. You seem certain in light of other experts being less certain. I admit to being confused.

Any L.A. or O.C. based vintage experts that would have a look in the metal?

There are some subs from the 60s that do still glow to this day. These are zinc sulphide dials and hands. These stopped in 1967, to my knowledge.

This particular example looks like a relume to me, with the lume bleeding out of the plots. It also has a strong glow, compared to what you would see on a zinc sulphide dial.. but this is my personal opinion. If you want expert opinion, take it to LA Watchworks in Pasadena. They'll tell you.

As for what I would do, I would ask for a refund from the seller since it was not disclosed. A relumed piece does not have the same market price as an original dial/hands.

[btinl]

You should return it and get a full refund.

[77T]

My 2¢
This case involves a partially described listing, a vintage watch being offered by a fairly new seller here ( less than 1 year), and an under-informed buyer.

The listing...
The seller disclosed a new 93150 bracelet.
He should have disclosed a recut case in the posting - although the buyer learned Rolliworks had worked on it.
He should have disclosed the relume too (presuming he knew it) or have stated he was unaware of its originality.

The seller...
Appears to be honest yet is apparently dragging his feet on a possible refund. The watch appears to be authentic but was reworked and his only promise was that the 1680 was authentic. However, he didn’t promise what he would do about it not being original.

The buyer...
IMHO, the advice should have been sought ahead of doing a deal for the watch. He apparently sells vintage himself here and could have seen that the case was obviously recut and that was a clue. But I can understand a buyer who is new to vintage watches not catching that. The buyer offers a generous return policy when he is selling other watches. But the seller didn’t say such in his listing.

Bottom line, the price was high for this 1680 considering the 3 issues everyone already discussed.

The fairest thing might be to engage a mutually agreed independent expert (along the lines of Springer or another member) who could inspect the watch and ascertain a fair adjustment (if the price was too high).

I know that’s in a perfect world and wouldn’t be binding - just answering the OP’s question about what would be fair...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[mrs_LA]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

I checked in with the seller earlier today and he said he'd check in on this thread to catch up (he's three hours ahead). His only response thus far is that it shouldn't matter or affect value...

Oh boy... of course it matters!

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by southtexas

Apparently seller sold the watch as “100% authentic”. A relume is by definition not authentic. If he didn’t know if it was or was not, he shouldn’t have made that statement.

And it sounds like buyer relied on his statement of 100% authentic. Now how to address the length of time between sale and discovery.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Been asking myself that same question...what would I do if someone came back to me more than 30 days later?

Well, I'd definitely be responsive (which the seller has been thus far), I'd definitely seek third party opinions, and I'd investigate ways that I could solve the problem for the buyer. And if someone came to me after 30 days with buyer's remorse or a small nick or a crystal scratch or something less significant, I'd probably stand firm.

But when it comes to a matter of authenticity or originality, that feels different.

To me, the bigger question now seems to be if this is an authenticity issue or not. Some clearly believe that a re-lumed watch is not "100% authentic." I happen to agree in the case of this watch and this description/guarantee.

[77T]

Originally Posted by southtexas

Apparently seller sold the watch as “100% authentic”. A relume is by definition not authentic. If he didn’t know if it was or was not, he shouldn’t have made that statement.

And it sounds like buyer relied on his statement of 100% authentic. Now how to address the length of time between sale and discovery.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes good point about this being more than a month later.

I have a different POV on reluming dials - the dial is authentic but not “untouched” nor “original” any longer.

Of course the listing was silent on those points and should have been disclosed.

It has been altered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by 77T

My 2¢
This case involves a partially described listing, a vintage watch being offered by a fairly new seller here ( less than 1 year), and an under-informed buyer.

The listing...
The seller disclosed a new 93150 bracelet.
He should have disclosed a recut case in the posting - although the buyer learned Rolliworks had worked on it.
He should have disclosed the relume too (presuming he knew it) or have stated he was unaware of its originality.

The seller...
Appears to be honest yet is apparently dragging his feet on a possible refund. The watch appears to be authentic but was reworked and his only promise was that the 1680 was authentic. However, he didn’t promise what he would do about it not being original.

The buyer...
IMHO, the advice should have been sought ahead of doing a deal for the watch. He apparently sells vintage himself here and could have seen that the case was obviously recut and that was a clue. But I can understand a buyer who is new to vintage watches not catching that. The buyer offers a generous return policy when he is selling other watches. But the seller didn’t say such in his listing.

Bottom line, the price was high for this 1680 considering the 3 issues everyone already discussed.

The fairest thing might be to engage a mutually agreed independent expert (along the lines of Springer or another member) who could inspect the watch and ascertain a fair adjustment (if the price was too high).

I know that’s in a perfect world and wouldn’t be binding - just answering the OP’s question about what would be fair...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This is, seriously, the kind of thoughtful answer that makes this place so great! Thank you!

I think you've accurately assessed the situation. To some extent, this is an example of an "under informed" buyer and an "under informed" seller, working together, each with good intentions but combining to mung up a vintage watch deal.

I don't typically sell vintage, but the last couple of years have made me a magnet for watch offers (not complaining at all...really enjoyable), which is how the 1655 found me. Everything else is new, modern, and "neo-vintage," all of which with I'm far more comfortable than vintage.

I definitely recognize my part in this. But I'm hoping that a couple of decent folks trying to do a deal the right way can come together to solve this reasonably.

And toward that end, thank you again to everyone for all of this input, feedback, and advice!

[mitchie41]

I'm not expert, but back in this era there were different applications of lume (i.e. Puffy or Flat). Different Dial Manufacturers, and even different compositions of luminous tritium paint that were being used.

As a result you can see tons of variety in terms of how dials can look, age, and react to UV light, even when they are close to eachother in terms of SN.

I would definitely seek out a few opinions from experts on this matter....Did you happen to ask Rolliworks since they previously worked on this watch?

[Cloudchaser]

Originally Posted by mitchie41

I'm not expert, but back in this era there were different applications of lume (i.e. Puffy or Flat). Different Dial Manufacturers, and even different compositions of luminous tritium paint that were being used.

As a result you can see tons of variety in terms of how dials can look, age, and react to UV light, even when they are close to eachother in terms of SN.

I would definitely seek out a few opinions from experts on this matter....Did you happen to ask Rolliworks since they previously worked on this watch?

There have been a few experts on this thread who have weighed in, definitely...Springer among them.

[mrs_LA]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

Been asking myself that same question...what would I do if someone came back to me more than 30 days later?

Well, I'd definitely be responsive (which the seller has been thus far), I'd definitely seek third party opinions, and I'd investigate ways that I could solve the problem for the buyer. And if someone came to me after 30 days with buyer's remorse or a small nick or a crystal scratch or something less significant, I'd probably stand firm.

But when it comes to a matter of authenticity or originality, that feels different.

To me, the bigger question now seems to be if this is an authenticity issue or not. Some clearly believe that a re-lumed watch is not "100% authentic." I happen to agree in the case of this watch and this description/guarantee.

I purchased a watch from a "trusted seller" here on TRF. I was very happy with the watch, until I found out a few weeks after that the hands had been relumed and color matched. The listing was described as "all original"

I informed the seller, and he issued me a refund, even after a few weeks of having the watch.

[037]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

I checked in with the seller earlier today and he said he'd check in on this thread to catch up (he's three hours ahead). His only response thus far is that it shouldn't matter or affect value...

Now that I've seen the original listing, I'm now curious what the market value would be on your watch. How much of a spread are we talking here?

[TimeLord2]

Originally Posted by Cloudchaser

Been asking myself that same question...what would I do if someone came back to me more than 30 days later?

Well, I'd definitely be responsive (which the seller has been thus far), I'd definitely seek third party opinions, and I'd investigate ways that I could solve the problem for the buyer. And if someone came to me after 30 days with buyer's remorse or a small nick or a crystal scratch or something less significant, I'd probably stand firm.

But when it comes to a matter of authenticity or originality, that feels different.

To me, the bigger question now seems to be if this is an authenticity issue or not. Some clearly believe that a re-lumed watch is not "100% authentic." I happen to agree in the case of this watch and this description/guarantee.

Who cares if it's a month later. A fairly drastic refurbishment is not disclosed. I think we can all agree the majority of the value in one of these vintage watches (not going to have the vintage argument now...) revolves around the the authenticity of the dial and hands, not to mention a rare dial. Given this, I do think the seller should make a refund for goods with known (I stress known) defects that are not fully disclosed at the time of purchase.

Originally Posted by 77T

Yes good point about this being more than a month later.

I have a different POV on reluming dials - the dial is authentic but not “untouched” nor “original” any longer.

Of course the listing was silent on those points and should have been disclosed.

It has been altered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes!! This!