: Over the past few days, there has been a lot of discussion, on
: this forum and elsewhere, of the possibility that the Antiquorum
: auction house edited a photo in an auction catalog (using
: Photoshop or some similar program), to remove some severe
: blemishes on the bezel of a vintage watch. The three photos that
: follow show (a) the watch in a photo that does not appear to
: have been edited, (b) the watch in the main catalog photo (which
: appears to have been edited to clean up the bezel), and (c) a
: detailed view of a portion of the edited image, showing some
: “over-spray” on the numeral 10, which appears to have been
: caused by some sloppy editing.

: [unedited photo, showing a gash on the bezel at 10 o'clock]

:
:

: [photo in auction catalog, which appears to have been edited to
: remove the gash]

:
:

: [detail of the edited photo, showing some over-spray / sloppy
: editing on the numeral 10]

:
:

: I thought that it might be interesting to use this situation, to
: discuss some questions that arise in buying and selling watches,
: our use of photographs (and Photoshop), and some broader
: questions of honesty and fair dealing. Buying and selling
: watches using the internet and e-mail raises some interesting
: ethical issues.

: So let me pose a few questions, to get the discussion going: when
: you are selling a watch that has some obvious blemishes, might
: you take multiple photos in order to get one or two in which the
: blemish is less visible (or even not visible at all)? Is it fair
: game to use Photoshop (or a similar editing program) to remove
: the blemishes? Is there a difference between using a cloning or
: healing tool to remove a blemish and other less dramatic
: adjustments (exposure / saturation / levels / brightness /
: etc.)? What about posting smaller, darker photos that hide the
: details of the watch? Would you expect different standards of
: conduct as between different types of sellers – reputable
: high-end auction house; eBay or other online auction; private
: seller? When you are buying a watch through an auction house, do
: you believe that the auction house is representing that photos
: of the watch have not been edited to remove blemishes and
: defects? When you are selling a watch, do you volunteer
: information that might adversely impact the value or the
: prospective buyer’s decision (for example, that the watch has
: been running slow and probably needs an overhaul or that some
: parts have been replaced)? Does it depend on whether or not the
: prospective buyer asks the question? Does it depend on whether
: you are selling to a friend or to a stranger? I look forward to
: an interesting discussion and of course you should feel free to
: share any additional thoughts on these types of issues.

: Jeff

Well, I don't know how it goes here but back over home folk who are shown to have taken photos at angles designed to hide blemishes find their sales privileges removed, use of a photo editing program to achieve the same result would be an instant ban. Personally I don't even like the use of HDR programs to make a watch look better than it is. It's all too easy these days.

We expect full disclosure of issues with a piece including blemishes. People who fail to do so find the membership tends to tear them a new one, nothing is considered more important than honesty in a sales post. This includes info on slow running etc as well as cosmetic stuff. In the case of any dispute arising our sales moderators will invariably find against those who do not demonstrate full transparency. We allow replies to sales adverts and those posting bad/small/dark pics will be asked by members to post better ones. In short I/we hold the members to the highest standard and I would have expected the same from a major auction house. What you see should of cause be what you get, anything else is not acceptable conduct IMHO.

I don't think I've seen anything quite as blatant as the above example on our forum and I'm still having difficulty coming to terms with the fact it happened considering the firm involved.