Mark:

I find myself agreeing with you on the technical points (details of an execution or ranges of serial numbers), and now I find myself agreeing with you on these philosophical points.

I won't go through your great points one by one, but let me especially support your point about the "bragging" (though you don't use that word). As another writer pointed out, maybe it goes back to our behavior / manners on the playground, and people never liked the kid who claimed to be the smartest (as shown by his grade on the recent test), or to own the finest or fastest (bicycle), or to be the strongest (bully), or to have made the shrewdest trade (for the baseball card), or to have the best looking (girlfriend or bicycle). And so now, half a century later, when we see this same behavior with respect to the old watches, people declaring to the rest of us that they have the rarest, the finest, etc.

I sometimes wonder what these folks were like as children. Yes, we can spot the "only children" who ruled their worlds and were never wrong, and the ones who were the bullies (or were bullied), and the rich kids who had whatever they wanted (and felt compelled to show it off to the rest of us).

All in all, I feel that the grade for conduct / citizenship on our forum is in the "A" range . . . some might say we would get closer to the "A plus" with a little less of the bragging and competitive claims!!

Jeff

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

: Of course, it's not as bad as old WB, or all those wilfully
: misunderstanding the mesoamerican long count calendar, would
: have us believe. Nonetheless, we have seen changes in our little
: corner of the watch collecting world and I'm with Ron in not
: necessarily seeing them all as being for the better.

: With growing numbers of collectors comes growing scope for
: professionalism, and that's something that I don't really take
: issue with. But the collecting itself has been moving towards
: the more competitive too, and I don't find that quite as
: palatable. In some quarters, comparatives and superlatives are
: thrown around with wild abandon, and I don't really need that.
: You may want to join in the rush for the best, the most, the
: cheapest, the most expensive but I'm happy to judge for myself,
: thank you. I take care when asked to date a watch (I don't
: recommend it, they are cold and you always end up paying
: for dinner) to point out that this is based on a small sample of
: serials and a bit of deductive work, and so seeing watches
: proclaimed as "one of the rarest of all Heuers" on
: what seems sometimes to be the basis of the claimant only ever
: having seen that one can jar a bit.

: I am lucky in the sense that I amassed a lot of my collection about
: a million years ago (give or take roughly a million years), so
: can afford to be selective now and not be exposed to what
: occasionally feel like inflated prices for even the most common
: Heuers. It felt like a gentlemanly pursuit then, and still does
: often today, though that is perhaps where Ron sees the potential
: for conflict between that and professionalism. I think there is
: still room enough for both. But part of that is about sharing
: information, which really is the crux of why a forum like this
: exists, so it's disheartening to see someone criticised for
: daring to post links to eBay auctions. It still sticks in my
: throat a bit, to be honest. Unless you stumble on a spectacular
: misspelling, no eBay listing is going to go unseen by other
: members of the community in any case, and having to spend a few
: quid extra does not justify an ad hominem attack. A few people
: have told me that they have been contacted off board by other
: members about having "broken the rules" of the forum
: too. What rules would those be? A quiet word when someone is way
: off base can be kindly, but one of the great things about OTD is
: that there aren't that many rules to break! So you don't have 15
: people rushing to point out the slightest transgression, all
: saying the same thing, which I see a lot of on other fora.

: And on that front, and aligned to the fact that the entry point
: into Heuer collecting, is that if you ask for information on a
: watch, please take it in the spirit it is given. You asked for
: it in the first place after all. I know people are inclined to
: be invested in a watch they have laid out good money for, and
: nobody wants to think they have been taken in, but the facts are
: the facts. Or rather, and this is where the matter is somewhat
: clouded, the opinions grounded in extensive research are the
: opini... well, you get where I'm going without having to type
: that all out again, right? That ties into the current
: discussions around condition too. It's all about opinion, it's
: very difficult to quantify what is essentially a qualitative
: measure. And in my opinion, maybe 1 in 10 of the watches I see
: that are NOS actually are, and the same goes for
: "mint". There has been more than one watch presented
: as mint that I personally would only rate as fair, on a scale
: that would include "very good" and "good" in
: between too. So sellers, just describe the watch, don't use all
: those comparatives and superlatives; we can see for ourselves
: often that it has been relumed and doesn't deserve the condition
: rating you want to give it.

: So for one Christmas wish for OTD, I just would like everyone to
: get along. Present your new buys like a proud parent, but don't
: feel the need to compare them to other people's watches and
: accept that it might not be the pinnacle of perfection after all
: and that others may like to ask questions about it. Happy
: (insert celebration of choice) everyone!