Readers:

I was on a plane for much of the day today, and had no computer access even when I wasn't traveling. In any event, I wrote the following, which is intended to become a webpage / blog posting. Let me add that this was written without my having reviewed the messages that had been posted in this thread. I only had seen the question that was posted (and I saw the very informative storm brewing)!!

Sorry that I have not added any of the referenced photos, but I will throw in four photos of the Wong watch (and four Mustangs) at the very bottom. The Wang watch is here -- http://www.onthedash.com/pics4docs/MonManJW/

I look forward to reading all the message in full detail, and to updating the piece that appears below.

Jeff

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

It’s Also OK to Say “They’re Ugly and I Don’t Like Them”

The three-register manual-wind Monacos, Reference 73633, with all-lume painted markers have been the subject of a long-time debate on our discussion forum . . . perhaps one of the “great mysteries” of collecting the vintage Heuers. With the recent sale of one of these on eBay at a price in excess of $4,000, and yet another discussion of their authenticity, it seems worthwhile to review what we know -- and don’t know -- about these watches. Other may have different views, but the following will summarize my current views on these watches.

The “Blueberries” -- Key Elements. The chronographs that have been the subject of this ongoing controversy are three-register, manual-wind Monacos, with blue dials and registers, and painted luminous markers. (For ease of reference, I will refer to these as “Blueberries”.) Most Blueberries that we have seen have thick-looking polished steel hands, with red inserts running the length of the hands, with red triangular tips; we do see some of these watches with other hands. In no instance have we seen one of these watches with the hands ordinarily found on the authentic Reference 73633 Monacos. Whereas normal production Reference 73633 Monacos always have “Tool 033” marked on the case-back, many of the Blueberries do not have this marking.

When Were They Made? Before we get to the question of “Who made the Blueberries?”, let’s get to what should be a simpler question – “When were these watches made?” Do they look fresh and new, in which case they are likely to be fakes, or do they look old, in which case they are more likely to be authentic (meaning made by Heuer)? I have seen only one of the Blueberries in the metal, and it had considerable age on it (i.e., it appeared to be at least 20 years old). So while it is possible that some have been produced more recently, I am confident that some of these Blueberries must have been made “back in the day”, say in the 1970s or 1980s.

Who Made Them? On the “Big Question” of whether they were made by Heuer or someone else, I find it hard to imagine that Heuer actually produced these. Based on high resolution photos of a couple of samples, the finish is so crude and the quality so inconsistent, that I just can’t believe that they left the Heuer factory in the condition in which we are seeing them today. Even during the “lean years” at Heuer, and even when Heuer was making “economy” watches, we never saw such poor quality (or anything nearly this bad). Have a look at the finish of the dial shown below, and the poor quality is obvious. And if you are wondering, TAG Heuer issued a letter confirming the authenticity of this watch, in 2007.

If not from the Heuer factory, then we face the question, of who made these watches. I would suggest two possible answers to this question: (1) Heuer ordered some of these dials, rejected them because of the poor quality, and someone else made them into complete watches. We have seen troves of Heuer rejects and surplus in other contexts, so why not these Monacos? (2) Heuer made some “Poor Man’s” Monacos, for brands like Villard and Edox. These watches were “Blueberries”, complete with the crude looking hands. At some point, someone -- other than Heuer – got hold of these “Poor Man’s” dials, and could not resist the urge to turn them into Heuers. Thus we see the poor quality on the Heuer logo and the “Monaco” script, as someone had to remove the “Villard” and replace it with the “Heuer” and “Monaco”. These “Poor Man’s” Monacos from Villard and Edox never had the Tool 033 marking (as this marking was always combined with the “Heuer” shield), and so the fake Blueberries that we are seeing today also lack this Tool 033 marking.

Authentication by TAG Heuer?. In terms of the authentication by TAG Heuer, with all due humility and respect, this is not convincing or authoritative. We have seen “put together” watches in the Museum and other instances in which letters have been issued that are at odds with the information that we, as a community, have developed. I don’t attribute this to any bad motives, only to a lack of records and other information. The fact that the watch shown immediately above was authenticated by TAG Heuer confirms that the process may not be reliable.

My Bottom Line -- They’re Ugly. Regardless of the history of these watches or how we come out on the issue of authenticity, we should all reserve our right to judge these Blueberries on a different basis. We all have the right to say, “Whatever they are, and whoever may have made them, I think they’re ugly. The paint is rough, the hands are crude, and the printing is awful. Case closed!!"

I go back to my (favorite) analogy of the Ford Mustangs . . . yes, the 1976 and 1977 Mustangs (shown below) were absolutely authentic, having come from the Ford factory, but they’re also ugly [to my eye] and made of inferior quality components, and so they hold little value for today’s collector. For my money, whether it's the Heuers or the Mustangs, I’ll stick with the thoroughbreds!! Others may like the looks of the Blueberry Monacos, and some may buy into the story that they were actually made by Heuer, but they are simply not for me.

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