zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

I find that upon reflection I disagree with some of Matt's sentiments on a factual basis.

[quote=M4tt;565208]The accusation I want to prove false is that Omega bid on items they were selling. The question of collusion is simply a red herring unless collusion was necessary to make such a bid and it wasn't – I own many Omega, I like Omega and I would like to see this claim:

proven false. Sadly, this has not happened yet. [/quote]

Unless I really missed something, this claim is not made in the WSJ article. It is implied, it has been discussed, but the author did not make this claim. The closest the article comes are these two paragraphs:

"The business of auctions for collectibles is not a model of transparency.

The identities of most bidders are known only to the auction houses.

Sellers commonly have a "reserve," or minimum, price, and when the

bidding is below that, the auctioneer often will bid anonymously on the

seller's behalf. However, the most established houses, such as Christie's

International PLC, announce when the seller of an item keeps bidding on

it after the reserve price has been reached.

Omega's president, Stephen Urquhart, says the

company is not hiding the fact that Omega

anonymously bid and bought at an auction. He

says Omega bought the watches so it could put

them in its museum in Bienne, Switzerland.

"We didn't bid for the watches just to bid. We

bid because we really wanted them," he says.

Omega's parent, Swatch Group Ltd., declined to

comment."

[quote=M4tt;565208]

Excellent, in that case, I would love to know the provenance of some of the watches that Omega bid on – I would like to disprove this persistent rumour that Omega bid on their own watches – which was repeated in the article this is meant to be responding to. [/quote]

In the WSJ article, Patrizzi estimated Omega bid on 80 or so items and bought 47. We know 7 of which were not ones they previously owned. It does not state Omega bid on their own watches.

Here are the three paragraphs that mention this subject:

"To build interest, Mr. Patrizzi and Omega officials traveled to 11 cities, hosting events such as a flashy party at the Beverly

Wilshire Hotel with celebrities such as actors Charlie Sheen and Marcia Gay Harden. Antiquorum and Omega joined in

publishing the huge, glossy auction catalog. When the sale, dubbed "Omegamania," took place in April, it was shown on

jumbo screens at the BaselWorld watch fair and streamed live on the Internet for online bidding.

It brought in $5.5 million. Besides the $351,000 platinum watch, Omega outbid collectors on 46 other lots, including many

of the most expensive. Mr. Patrizzi estimates Omega bid on 80 lots in all, out of 300.

A Singaporean collector, told of Omega's role, called it "heinous." Melvyn Teillol-Foo, who bid over the Internet and

bought a few pricey watches, added: "If it turns out they bid against me and got me to $8,000, I would be ticked off."

I contributed to the rumor because I assumed Omega owned and put up for sale far more watches than they actually did. I, apparently incorrectly, assumed that if a watch were not attributed to a collector or the Museum that it must have come from Omega. Myview of the auction is far different if Omega sold 154 watches than if Omega sold 10.

The Singaporean bidder was upset if Omega bid the price up, not that Omega was bidding on watches they sold.

[quote=M4tt;565208]

To my mind, the most damaging claim made in the article is the claim that Omega bid upon watches it was selling. This claim is not mentioned at all. This is strange as it is the central claim of the article. [/quote]

I have reread the article and, as noted above, can't find this claim. I don't believe it is there. The central claim of the article is somewhat different, in my view:

Auctions have been used as a marketing tool to drive up the price of vintage watches by watch companies by making judicious purchases for their musuem or the owners personal collections; auctions are secretive and these practices are not well known. There exists in this environment the potential for less than ethical behavior, although none is cited.

I was angered and reacted emotionally to the WSJ article. I made assumptions which are most likely false. I look at what I actually know and see only a very successful promotion of a brand -- and the possibility for more heinous market manipulation, but no proof of it.