zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Agree or disagree, I appreciate you weighing in on this, Eric. Always.

Well, I am a big fat loudmouth.

Again-- I'm letting this play out in time in order to address it personally, at appropriate levels. My reason for sharing these concerns here is that this is an area of experience (and, frankly, passion) that I bring to Chronocentric, much as I have come to value what so many of you bring in terms of historical knowledge, technical understanding, and price comparisons.
At a certain point, this ceases to be a matter of speculation (your thoughts on Darth Vader versus mine), and one of law. Specifically, the Federal Trade Commission, in response to your reference to "false advertising claims."
My concern is as a consumer. Track eBay auctions and tell me that the 2537.80 w/ the mere addition of a few 007 logos is no more valuable than a 2531.80 in similar condition. For that matter, does the (in my opinion) better 2254.50 Seamaster sell more volume than the 2531.80 "James Bond Choice"?

Your point is taken, but there are other obvious factors. I would argue that the fact that it is of very limited edition plays as great a role as the 007 branding. Of course, it would be hard to mince that one out, as the two are intimately tied.

Is it okay to change the caseback, dial, and clasp on a 2531.80 and sell it as a 2537.80, then?

No, in the same way it would be wrong to put old parts on a new Speedy and try to sell it as old.

The point of comparison is that Omega SA is representing even now, as I write this, that the DeVille 4832.51.31 is part of its "Watch Selection James Bond." As we've talked about in other matters here on this Forum, that makes it reasonable to infer that this is a watch that is or will appear on the James Bond character in the film.
And you'd better believe that that affects the value of the watch you own that does have this association, and doesn't help a lick the watch you have that does not have this association.
That's part of why I care.

Ah, there's that law-talkin' stuff ;-) Is it really reasonable to infer that the watch will appear in the film, just because it is called a "Bond watch?" This was really my point in my initial post. Bond is a fictional character with a fictional life offscreen. I think it is reasonable to infer that these are watches that Omega believes are in the "style" of Bond, and ones he might wear in other situations.
Further, there's the matter of inference which, of course, is on the one who is inferring. Again, if Coke enters into a contract with Lucasfilm and starts using character's images on the can, is it reasonable to assume that they'll be enjoying that cool crisp cola taste in the film? Should we be upset with Coke when the movie comes out totally...er...Cokeless? I prefer Pepsi, but I was buying Coke because I thought that was Chewie's choice!

Beyond this, if any old watch can be called "a James Bond watch," then why limit it to Omega? There are some great looking CTI watches out there that folks have shown me: At 20 feet away, it looks a lot like my 2531.80 Seamaster. So, let's forget the money Omega puts into product placement and let CTI lay claim, too -- since, after all, James Bond is a fictional character.

I don't know that it's that easy to forget the money. Presumably, Omega has a contract with, for lack of knowledge, I'll say "the Bond folks." I can only guess that they are licensed to call certain pieces "Bond watches."

It doesn't work that way.
I'm not saying this is true for everyone, but I wouldn't own a 2561.80 or a 2551.80, despite these being merely mid-sized versions of "the" Bond watches. Omega can't and doesn't say they are Bond watches, because they didn't appear in the films. Same rules should apply to the DeVille here. And if you want to buy a mid-sized to satisfy your Bond affinity interests, that's fine: But we need to respect you enough to inform you that it's a mid-sized version of a watch that appeared in the films, and not the same as the watch that appeared in the films.

Just a thought but, the LE Bond watch does not appear in any Bond film.

Bottom line: This is FrankenAdvertising in my mind.
Once more, Eric, thank you for your contribution to moving this dialogue forward. I absolutely appreciate and have benefited from your technical wisdom here, so it's nice to be able to give something back from the intellectual properties and commerce disciplines.

It's always a pleasure to ramble on. I'm not a law-talkin' guy, and I may be way off, but that's never stopped me before. Just some thoughts.

eric