Govberg asking US$37.5k for LNIB Blue 5711. What is going on?!

[Star Ferry]

We're being told two things that IMO cannot both be true

1) Requiring additional purchases (with hard-to-get watches) is a normal & acceptable business practice
2) Joking about a dealer requiring jewelry purchases is a disparaging & unfair attack

If #1 is true, then #2 sounds questionable. Meanwhile, if #2 is true, then it suggests #1 is not.

I think this is the source of the constant jokes (which personally I don't make)

[Tools]

1) There are many Dealers who hold watches and other jewelry for their big-spending customers. Yes, it is practiced frequently and would be considered "normal" for many businesses, not just jewelry dealers.

2) Joking is one thing, verbal attacks or even libel, is something else.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by AK797

In fairness to the mods, whom we all respect and deeply acknowledge keep this forum as the best on the net by a mile, the Govberg thread had dragged on for many many pages and we all had our say before finally the mods told us to rein it in. I was vocal on that thread as well but we had all had our say by then and it was time to stop as it was all one sided. As for members getting banned I am sure they were warned before but yet kept repeating comments about Govberg in other threads, even on the Rolex forum too, and there is only so much you leeway you can give members before action is taken.

But why delete it? I get closing it, but many want to know why it's deleted??

[Chiboy]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

But why delete it? I get closing it, but many want to know why it's deleted??

Yes, this is the issue. When one scrubs 27 pages of history, it makes readers wonder if the history book (searching the archives) has been altered. There is a difference between saying one or two people crossed the line versus having the entire discussion removed from the historical archives. Is there really no value to future TRFers being able to evaluate for themselves whether any of this discussion is germane to them? If this board is supposed to be a forum for members to discuss watch issues (while respecting other members), that is one thing. If it is meant to be a warehouse of only positive experiences with sponsors (?) or Pledge members, that should be communicated so everyone that comes here knows that the board is not meant to represent all views, only certain views.

I will admit, having been here for just a little over a year, that I am at the moment pretty confused about what TRF really is trying to be, and how I should view it.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by Chiboy

Yes, this is the issue. When one scrubs 27 pages of history, it makes readers wonder if the history book (searching the archives) has been altered. There is a difference between saying one or two people crossed the line versus having the entire discussion removed from the historical archives. Is there really no value to future TRFers being able to evaluate for themselves whether any of this discussion is germane to them? If this board is supposed to be a forum for members to discuss watch issues (while respecting other members), that is one thing. If it is meant to be a warehouse of only positive experiences with sponsors (?) or Pledge members, that should be communicated so everyone that comes here knows that the board is not meant to represent all views, only certain views.

I will admit, having been here for just a little over a year, that I am at the moment pretty confused about what TRF really is trying to be, and how I should view it.

You are not alone, and Knappo 1307's question is one that I think is on everyone's mind and is central to this discussion.

[soundserious]

As an actual 5711 owner my strategy is to avoid any 5711 related thread. I’m breaking my rule here but it’s for a good reason. All of these 5711 threads generally degenerate into anarchy. Such is the effect of this simple 3-hand stainless steel watch.

I am really unclear why there is so much difficulty in understanding pricing of this watch. I wouldn’t sell my 5711 for 37.5k, nobody would right now. Maybe a time will come when the valuations on these will come down. Anyway, carry on.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Tools

1) There are many Dealers who hold watches and other jewelry for their big-spending customers. Yes, it is practiced frequently and would be considered "normal" for many businesses, not just jewelry dealers.

2) Joking is one thing, verbal attacks or even libel, is something else.

That is where i am confused. To my knowledge the banning happened because of a joke. The AD's name was not mentioned, but it has become sort of an inside joke to say "i wonder how much jewelry he had to buy" when someone is talking about getting a hard to get watch. I have done it too so it could have easily been me. I will stop now obviously. However if the "jokes" have gone too far I know we would all appreciate a heads up like "no jokes about jewelry" as I don't think Karl was attacking the AD, he was making a joke and didn't even mention the AD's name and probably thought it was OK. I highly doubt he was trying to get banned and was trying to be in the ill defined grey area.

The conditional purchase was one thing that is indisputably true about the 5522 thread. The AD is entitled to do it if they want, clearly. Joking about having to make a conditional purchase to get a watch can't be libel because its verifiably true. In any case, that is some of the confusion here with all the questions about what is going on.

[Bryant Park]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

That is where i am confused. To my knowledge the banning happened because of a joke. The AD's name was not mentioned, but it has become sort of an inside joke to say "i wonder how much jewelry he had to buy" when someone is talking about getting a hard to get watch. I have done it too so it could have easily been me. I will stop now obviously. However if the "jokes" have gone too far I know we would all appreciate a heads up like "no jokes about jewelry" as I don't think Karl was attacking the AD, he was making a joke and didn't even mention the AD's name and probably thought it was OK. I highly doubt he was trying to get banned and was trying to be in the ill defined grey area.

The conditional purchase was one thing that is indisputably true about the 5522 thread. The AD is entitled to do it if they want, clearly. Joking about having to make a conditional purchase to get a watch can't be libel because its verifiably true. In any case, that is some of the confusion here with all the questions about what is going on.

If I understand libel correctly in this context it's as follows;

You can joke "How many PP5522s does it take to screw in a light bulb"?
Or
"A guy walks into a bar wearing $20k worth of jewelry..."

You can't however link the two in a comedic manner.

[Passionata]

I think this whole thread was very interesting at the beginning but later on it was just beating a dead horse , i wish MODs would close the thread rather than ban those guys .
Enjoy your WE everybody !

[Russell996]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

The conditional purchase was one thing that is indisputably true about the 5522 thread. The AD is entitled to do it if they want, clearly.

We will see.
This story is about the PP brand and what behaviour is acceptable for an AD NOT what is legal.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by LitzDoc

People should read this book about booms and busts. I read it once per year. It applies to any market.

Oh my what a thread! Haven't looked at this for weeks. Avoiding the debate.... and APOLOGIES for perhaps a bit of OT talk.

Good book LitzDoc! Might i also suggest reading Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt: The Solution of the Economic Paradox

www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20140873

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

But why delete it? I get closing it, but many want to know why it's deleted??

That is a fair point. The thread should be closed but I believe still available to view.

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by AK797

That is a fair point. The thread should be closed but I believe still available to view.

Maybe there were some posts that could have put the forum ownership in legal trouble, I don't know. There were many closed threads in the past few years and this is the first deleted thread that I can remember (but I'm getting old so my memory is not how it used to be).

[JorgeCCW]

shady action that’s for sure, and I hate that because I love TRF, why put a shadow over it . Was it worth it ? ....once you break something you can’t put It together in the same way it was before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tng11]

Originally Posted by JorgeCCW

shady action that’s for sure, and I hate that because I love TRF, why put a shadow over it . Was it worth it ? ....once you break something you can’t put It together in the same way it was before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's definitely a chilling effect, and dealers can continue to engage in shady or underhanded tactics without the consequence of being exposed. I'm concerned that this is becoming less of a discussion forum, and one where you can only act as yes men.

[Chiboy]

I would like to believe there is a possibility that this thread will close, or die a slow death, and not be stricken from the record book.

[kultschar]

Any slanderous posts should have been deleted and if need be locked since it ran its course etc but the thread and the experience by the OP and others should have been left readable in my opinion (however its not my forum so guess have to take it as it is)

It was a legitimate complaint after all and the original post didn't even name the AD.

Does leave a bit of a sour taste for me if honest as OP gave a fair account of how he was treated

[Watch Admirer]

It’s a practice that in my opinion should not be encouraged, especially if expensive jewelry was purchased before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tools]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

That is where i am confused. To my knowledge the banning happened because of a joke. . . . .

You seem to be singularly focused on one aspect of dozens of pages with no back-story, history, off-thread discussion and research, or the other side of a complex story, and have reached a faulty conclusion.

I don't believe that anybody has been banned from TRF because of a joke.

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Originally Posted by Tools

You seem to be singularly focused on one aspect of dozens of pages with no back-story, history, off-thread discussion and research, or the other side of a complex story, and have reached a faulty conclusion.

I don't believe that anybody has been banned from TRF because of a joke.

Proof? Mods seem to be able to make claims with no evidence while members get struck down for the smallest perceived slight labeled as libel or whatever in my short time on this site. Just because you don’t believe anyone has doesn’t mean they haven’t.

[Bryant Park]

Originally Posted by ThinWhiteDuke

Proof? Mods seem to be able to make claims with no evidence while members get struck down for the smallest perceived slight labeled as libel or whatever in my short time on this site. Just because you don’t believe anyone has doesn’t mean they haven’t.

Here is proof of sorts that no one has gotten banned for a joke. Please see the photo of my warning for a joke below:

Embedded in my warning was my joke that in response to the question of which watch to wear on vacation, I responded "why not bring the 5522 and $20k worth of jewelry". Of course this was a joke and I never referenced a specific AD.

I didn't get banned, just a warning and told that my behavior was a "campaign of hate". So there is the proof you asked for at least from my experience. You don't get banned for joking just a polite warning and points.

[codecow]

I am a multiple year pledge member and I have no problem doing so. I’d rather the site be independent from ads and ADs and even trusted sellers (commercial) and would be willing to pay extra to insure that. I’m sure there are plenty of lawyers on here who would donate their resources to defend honest claims.

[JorgeCCW]

Originally Posted by Bryant Park

Here is proof of sorts that no one has gotten banned for a joke. Please see the photo of my warning for a joke below:

Embedded in my warning was my joke that in response to the question of which watch to wear on vacation, I responded "why not bring the 5522 and $20k worth of jewelry". Of course this was a joke and I never referenced a specific AD.

I didn't get banned, just a warning and told that my behavior was a "campaign of hate". So there is the proof you asked for at least from my experience. You don't get banned for joking just a polite warning and points.

That’s ridiculous



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bryant Park]

[QUOTE=JorgeCCW;8064818]That’s ridiculous

Your response is subjective and I defer comment. Not looking to draw comments about the warning. The moderators run the place and those are the rules.

It does however confirm the moderators protocol of giving warnings and the member has the option to change behavior.

This has caused me to stop initiating threads out of fear that I will inadvertently get myself banned.

By the way Jorge I have admired your collection for some time, great taste!

[Calatrava r]

The 5711 is scarce only because PP does not meet demand, Not much else to the equation. Watch making is all about contrived markets because overall demand is shrinking and will continue to do so.

[Marciano490]

Originally Posted by codecow

I am a multiple year pledge member and I have no problem doing so. I’d rather the site be independent from ads and ADs and even trusted sellers (commercial) and would be willing to pay extra to insure that. I’m sure there are plenty of lawyers on here who would donate their resources to defend honest claims.

I'll donate ten seconds to let everyone know that libel is written and slander is spoken and defamation is the umbrella term and that truth is an absolute defense to a claim for either.

[Wahlberg]

Originally Posted by Bryant Park

Here is proof of sorts that no one has gotten banned for a joke. Please see the photo of my warning for a joke below:

Embedded in my warning was my joke that in response to the question of which watch to wear on vacation, I responded "why not bring the 5522 and $20k worth of jewelry". Of course this was a joke and I never referenced a specific AD.

I didn't get banned, just a warning and told that my behavior was a "campaign of hate". So there is the proof you asked for at least from my experience. You don't get banned for joking just a polite warning and points.

Hahaha, love this joke though

[Russell996]

Originally Posted by Bryant Park

Here is proof of sorts that no one has gotten banned for a joke. Please see the photo of my warning for a joke below:

Embedded in my warning was my joke that in response to the question of which watch to wear on vacation, I responded "why not bring the 5522 and $20k worth of jewelry". Of course this was a joke and I never referenced a specific AD.

I didn't get banned, just a warning and told that my behavior was a "campaign of hate". So there is the proof you asked for at least from my experience. You don't get banned for joking just a polite warning and points.

I have spoken to Karl and he received absolutely no warnings prior to being permanently banned. 👎

[RussW]

Originally Posted by Russell996

I have spoken to Karl and he received absolutely no warnings prior to being permanently banned. 👎

A lot of us will miss him here. He’s a great guy.

[Bryant Park]

Originally Posted by Russell996

I have spoken to Karl and he received absolutely no warnings prior to being permanently banned. ��

My apologies as I was only representing my own experience and stand corrected.

I asked for specific criteria and rules for banning and thread deletion in a thread that has now been moved to Miscellaneous Announcement/Feedback Support. Given the responses I have gotten it suggest there is no specificity, just the subjective discretion of the moderator.

If this is incorrect once again I think we would all benefit from the criteria being diseemenated.

I couldn't agree more that Karl's departure and the general chilling effect of this ambiguity serve to diminish both the quality and openness of the content on this site, but as the aforementioned thread in Miscellaneous Forum clearly states it is the owners sole discretion to set the tone.