zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

:

:
: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2753448.ece

: Surely the simplest way would be for Omega to
: publicly admit which watches they bid on,
: which ones they owned & which ones they
: now own.

: Maybe I see the world a bit too simplisticly (
: is that a word ? ), but come out with the
: facts & end the speculation.

: As I said before, you can't mention eBay on TZ
: ( owned by the same people who own
: Antiquorum ).

: BUT, you can't bid on your own auctions in eBay
: ( or better said if you do & they catch
: you, they suspend your account ) & you
: can't sell fakes on eBay.

: There is no doubt that lot # 128, in the
: Antiquorum auction, was a fake ( even though
: it was overhauled by Omega themselves &
: came with a 2 year guarantee ! ) & there
: seems to be be some uncertainty as to
: whether Omega bid on watches they already
: owned.

: A plain statement, with plain facts would
: settle all the discussions.

My view of the world is such that I basically agree with you, Steve.

But after complaining about a lack of journalistic objectivity, I feel compelled to look at the circumstances from another and perhaps opposing view, even if I do not fully subscribe to the view, in order to see if that view has any merit.

Omega and Antiquorum apparently did nothing wrong and nothing that has not been common practice for the last fifteen years in watch auctions. But because of a newspaper article, we now expect, nay demand, something much more from Omega than from any other brand.

Why are we not making the same demands of any other watch company or about any other auction?

For instance, there was an Antiquorum auction on October 15 at which 45 Omegas were auctioned. Isn't it equally important to know if Omega sold any of these watches or if any of the sellers were in any way closely related to Omega? Was Omega one of the buyers of any of these 45 watches?

Objectively, the Omegamania auction ought to be treated no differently than any other auction.

Omega ought to be treated no differently than any other watch maker.

And Antiquorum ought to be treated no differently than any other auction house.

But that is not what is happening.

As far as lot 128 goes, as I have stated previously, neither Omega nor Antiquorum really authenticated the watches sold.

In fact, the biggest unchalleged patently false remark in the WSJ article was this paragraph:

"When he spoke to Omega executives at the end of 2004, Mr. Patrizzi felt that an Omega-only auction might be what the
brand needed to revive its image. There was one problem. Antiquorum couldn't vouch for the authenticity of watches that
are mass-produced; since they are worn more, their watch movements have often been opened and tampered with in the
course of repair. So in an unusual arrangement, Omega agreed to guarantee the authenticity of all watches sold at the
auction, and refurbish those needing it beforehand. Omega supplied vintage timepieces from its own collection for the sale."

As an owner of an Omegamania watch, no document I have verifies its authenticity beyond a certificate from Omega stating it is an Omega product sold during the auction, notes in the auction listing from Omega's production records (which I can purchase regarding any Omega watch for CHF 40) and a guarantee from Antiquorum that it is not a deliberate hoax (for a limited time). I did get a two year warranty from Omega.

No watch sold at any Antiquorum auction has any guarantee of authenticity beyond what I list above (that I know of), and the belief that Antiquorum wouldn't knowingly sell a fake.

I am not saying you are wrong to feel the way you do, Steve. I am trying to be fair and consider another way of viewing the circumstances before passing judgment, which is what journalism should do.

Thanks

Sam