I generally agree with your points, Stewart. My main qualm isnt with collectors using the driver names to identify a model/color combo--it's with using the driver name to inflate the supposed historical significance and therefore the price of said models. Obviously people get more excited to wear a watch just like the one their hero wore in the race car, but I feel like this fetishization is starting to skew the market more and more as dealers take up this naming system and use it as a sales tactic. And I think that is what Jeff is getting at in his comments. And for the record, Siffert wasn't paid to wear Heuers. He loved them and actually had a wholesaler license from Jack Heuer to sell them to other drivers (Siffert was supposedly a scrappy wheeler dealer, having grown up in relative poverty). So it's not unlikely he actually sold Derek Bell his "Derek Bell." Maybe it should be called a "Derek Bell as sold by Jo Siffert" and the the price can be tripled.

: Again, I kinda agree, but on the other hand I don't.
: Saying that the Monaco was product placement is, well, technically
: correct. But, in essence, so is is any kind of sponsorship, like
: with Jo Siffert, and any other driver that was given a Heuer
: because the race team was sponsored by them. They may well have
: been paid to wear them. They may even have not liked them (Hard
: to believe I know!). Heuers history is deeply entwined with
: motorsport through product placement. Yes, I know that the early
: (non-wrist) timers were 'race timing tools', but still, it was
: used eventually as advertising to sell their wrist watches to jo
: public.
: Why would the case of the Siffert be any different? And this bring
: us back to the original issue - namely people mis-naming a
: watch. The Siffert was a particular watch, but there were many
: 'white dial' versions afterwards, they are accepted to be called
: Sifferts.

: Interestingly, the drivers that we say 'shouldn't' be closely
: associated (Bellof, Bell, Hill etc etc) actually chose to
: wear them. Not through sponsorship, not being paid to do so or
: told to do so. Surely there is something in that, something more
: honest and respectful? (Same way McQueen chose a Sub 5513) You
: can't have it both ways.

: I think Heuer has a grand history in motorsport, and with the
: drivers wearing them, why should that be ignored. The thing is..
: it's us, the collectors, that have given these watches their
: names. They are not official, they have no real meaning only
: amongst us. I saw a Siffert sell on ebay a week or so ago, the
: vendor clearly wasn't a collector, as he stated in his ad
: something along the lines of "I believe this is a Siffert
: although this name isn't on the dial or anywhere on the
: watch".
: I think we should embrace Heuers association with motorsport and
: the association with these drivers. The importance associated
: with the name is down to us.

: If I'm writing about a particular watch, and I use a drivers name -
: it helps the reader know exactly which model. ie. "Blah
: blah blah, Autavia 1163v "Viceroy/Graham Hill" blah
: blah blah. You know exactly which model I mean, I wouldn't be
: 'christening' it with this name, but helping a fellow Heuerist
: know exactly which one I mean. It means nothing to a non
: Heuerist, and this, I feel is great. The history, the drivers,
: the sport.. it's all wrapped up in one easy name, and this, I
: believe should be fully embraced, and we should relax about it.

: Stewart
: PS. I admit, I don't know of the full story of Siffert & Heuer,
: so please accept my apologies if there was something deeper
: about his Heuer sponsorship/association.
: And, please inform me!!