++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

: Hi all, I'm a brand new member here but I've been posting on the
: Military Watch Resource for about 7-8 years. Being a collector
: of Lemania chronographs, I was asked by Mr. Ryan to give some of
: my thoughts on this matter. Unfortunately, I actually don't have
: any additional thoughts to contribute beyond what has already
: been written but, as I always try to do, I would like to apply a
: little added impartiality to this thread to try and get to the
: bottom of the issue at hand.

: First of all, whether the watch was made in the 1950s or the 1960s
: - someone can always make a mistake in terms of decades and we
: don't want to be too heavy handed should such an error be made.

: Second, let's try to glean as much information on the watch alone -
: independent of expert opinion. In order to do this - we have to
: ask ourselves a few questions and get some additional info from
: Antiquorum. Namely:

: 1) In the description of the movement, no mention is made of it
: having a column wheel, so it is highly likely that the movement
: is the Landeron cal. 248; can this be confirmed?

: 2) The movement is signed Heuer-Leonidas; a merger which occurred
: in the mid-1960s; AQ doesn't mention that the case is actually
: signed, they mention how it is merely 'numbered'. What is this
: number and is it consistent with cases (especially gold cases)
: manufactured by Heuer from the mid-1960s onwards?

: 3) Would we be able to see a close-up of the movement that would
: allow us to see just how the movement is signed - is it signed
: in such a way which is consistent with the way Heuer-Leonida
: movements normally were?

: If points #2 and #3 can be confirmed we could be well on our way to
: declaring the watch as 'authentic'. If these cannot be confirmed
: however, we must rely on the expert opinion which has already
: confirmed that no such combination of movement plus patented
: function were ever used by the Heuer company.

: Antiquorum, however, seems to base itself on hard evidence and hard
: evidence only. So far, so good right? Now how do you *prove*
: that something is fake? In 'logic' terms, this is impossible
: because one cannot prove a negative. For example, I can't
: produce a document that proves the Easter Bunny is make-believe.
: So when Mr. Ryan and the scores of military collectors who,
: among themselves, know for a fact that the apparent military
: issue Seamaster 300 dive watch (as mentioned earlier in this
: thread) is fake for reasons widely known among collectors - they
: are put in the same awkward position vis-a-vis AQ as I am in
: proving the Easter Bunny is false.

: Antiquorum, it seems, is operating like a big bureaucratic machine
: more focused on the bottom line in terms of sales than actually
: being accountable to its potential buyers. It is no less a
: minefield than Ebay but the worst part of it is that it seems to
: produce false credibility on the vintage watch market.