zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Hewybaby Posts: WSJ 10/8 article -- Omegamania correction

I was just corrected by James Dowling, Mr. Rolex, on an incorrect presumption that I had about the Omegamania auction in a TZ Public Forum post.
I have no greater respect for anyone in the collecting community than Mr. Dowling. There are a few collectors I would put in his league, but none I respect more.
Poring over the catalog, I had noted 10 items from the Omega Musuem and 146 from collectors. Thus, there were 156 with a source stated.

There were 4 prototypes and 140 items with no source noted, or a total of 144. This totaled the 300 lots in the auction.

I have assumed these 144 "unattributed" lots must have come from Omega. Mr. Dowling tells me that no, these come from 'the trade'.
Hmmm... OK... Go on...
Quote: [I assume from James...]

Quote:
I see the cause of your confusion; you are assuming that watches not described as the 'Property of a collector' were in fact supplied by Omega.

Nope, Antiquorum specified when watches came from Omega and when they came from significant collectiors; the rest, the unspecified lots were not from Omega.......they were from the trade, that is watch dealers.

Those of you who just thought you heard the sound of distant thunder, it wasn't distant thunder... Just my stomach growling...
I suspect Mr. Dowling is correct, the majority of these 144 pieces did come from 'the trade'. He is far more knowledgable than I ever hope to be.
James is very knowledgeable. That's true. But he will be the first to admit he's not always perfect.
Having had my presumption corrected, I hope Mr. Dowling will not mind my examining his statement. There are a few things that don't seem to make sense to me. My apparently incorrect presumption was based on more than the mere absence of a source in the lot listing.

Included in these 144 unattributed pieces were the following from the last day of the auction:
233 "LAST MAN ON THE MOON, NO. 1"
277 "HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY LIMITED EDITION, SET NO. 70"
278 "1894, JAPAN SET"
279 "OMEGA MUSEUM COLLECTION SET"
280 "1932 MARINE UNIQUE MASTERPIECE" NO. 1
282 "MICHAEL SCHUMACHER SPEEDMASTER SET"
283 "APOLLO-SOYUZ 2000"
284 "APOLLO 15 &endash; SCOTT WORDEN IRWIN NO. 1"
285 "PLATINUM SKELETONIZED SPEEDYMOON"
286 SET OF 3 "OBSERVATORY DIAL" CONSTELLATIONS
287 PLATINUM "CO-AXIAL CHRONOMETER"
288 "BIG DATE SET - NO. 1"
289 "DE VILLE RATTRAPANTE"
290 "CO-AXIAL CENTRAL TOURBILLON" No. 1
291 "SKELETONIZED SPLITSECONDS CHRONOGRAPH"
292 PLATINUM "DELUXE SPLIT-SECONDS CHRONOGRAPH"
293 "TORINO 2006 SET" No. 1
294 "POCKETWATCH 1932, SET NO. 8"
295 "50TH ANNIVERSARY SKELETONIZED OMEGA SEAMASTER"
296 "PLANET OCEAN - CASINO ROYALE NO. 1"
297 "SEAMASTER &endash; 007, NO. 1"
300 "THE "CASINO ROYALE PLANET OCEAN" - ACTUALWATCH WORN BY DANIEL CRAIG DURING THE FILMING - "

There are a lot of set's, No. 1's and other pretty hard to source items in those lots aren't there?

Is it possible that Antiquorum managed to put together this impressive collection of items from 'the trade'?
Manned moon landings are possible... Anything is possible granted unlimited resources and the willingness to expend them.

One could look at it this way... Antiquorum is probably as well equipped to pull off accumulating a tally of lots like the above as anyone and probably better equipped than nearly anyone. Plus, they are industry insiders. Chances are if anyone from Antiquorum calls any Swiss Watchmaker, they get through to someone who can give them a definative answer with no run around.

Or, one can say, there is no way Antiquorum could have pulled together all of those lots without at least some assistance from Omega, and probably a lot of assistance from Omega.
The last three items were supplied by Omega for James Bond movies. When these items are supplied, doe Omega give them away and thus no longer have ownership? I imagined Omega still owned them.
Seems to be a reasonable assumption.
I count eight "no. 1" or first in series in these items (including the two Bond watches), including two manufactured in 2007, which I had imagined Omega might still own.
None of the above would come easy to even the most well monied collector. Assuming that Omega either still owned them or were responsible in some way for their availability for auction is a reasonable assumption.
If these were indeed accumulated from 'the trade', I am truly impressed by Antiquorum's ability to accumulate highly desirable and auctionable items.
Indeed, IF I am exceedingly impressed by their accumulation ability. Some people have said I'm good at such things, but I'm not even in their league!
But you understand why I presumed Omega supplied some of the "unattributed" lots when examining the auction catalog and noting the nature of the pieces included.
I understand completely and I feel that your assumptions on these lots anyway, would seem to be very reasonable.
Is it possible that another Swatch Group company, such as the owner and operator of the Omega Boutiques, might have supplied the "No. 1"s and thus not be "Omega" for purposes of the auction listing?
Again, all things are possible. Indeed it may be possible that some other entity within the Swatch Group family [perhaps someone with a stake] may have facilitated things. I'm not claiming that was the case, but it's possible something like that happened.
Or another branch of Swatch Group might actually own the Bond watches and supplied them to the moviemakers and then sold them at this auction?
Oh! you really want me to stick my foot into the boiling pot don't you!

Well... Look at that lot list you compiled above, Sam. Are those lots the domain of collectors like us, or the average collector we might meet in a forum or on the web?

Those are some pretty pricey lots. Who within Swatch Group would have a spread like that. I don't know the answer to that question, but I could sure guess.
I suggested that Antiquorum supply a listing of the anonymous paddle number of the winner of each lot, which might quiet some of the speculation going on. I realize this would be an extraordinary and precedent setting step.
Are you holding your breath? If so, what's the color of your complection.

I don't know what Antiquorum's role in all of this is. I don't know how well being on the front page of the WSJ went down within the organization. I don't know if the story made them more or less willing to be more open.

I know I wouldn't hold my breath though.
What say you?
As I said I have no higher respect in the collecting community than I do for James. And I also have great respect for you too Sam. However, whenever someone says A and the other person says Z, I fully expect the truth to be neither A or Z but somewhere inbetween. That is if one can determine the truth.

I suspect that not all of the lots which you had assumed to be "offered by Omega" lots were actually of that source. However, I do believe that some lots probably were and the lots you identified above are the most likely lots to have, at the very least, required some assistance from Omega in order to have them available for bidding in the Omegamania auction.

A number of the more publically visable members of the Omega collecting community have been aware that for the past couple of years Marco Richon has been a bidder [and often winning bidder] on a number of eBay auctions for some pretty uncommon, desireable and often pricey pieces. It's not a secret. It's always been the assumption within those aware of this, that Mr. Richon was purchasing these items for the Omega Museum or perhaps for his own collection. Neither of which cause me any moral/ethical concerns at all. In fact, it may well be that multiple items of the same type were acquired via this method so that Omega could determine which was the best piece to retain for the Museum while the others would be "disposed of" at an appropriate time. I don't have any significant moral/ethical issues with that either.

Antiquorum may well have been the method Omega choose to dispose of these "excess" items. I don't have any moral/ethical worries about that either. However, if the above is the case, if Omega was actively bidding on items they were offering... I understand that it does raise moral/ethical red flags. Shill bidding is rampant in auctions from the local estate auctions to the highest stakes auctions conducted by the big auction houses. It would be disappointing if it came to be proved to be the case that Omega was involved in such bidding [to my knowledge it hasn't been proved], but I am not sure I would find it especially surprising, as I have said in previous posts on this and related topics.

Once again and always, let the buyer [and bidder] beware. Think before you bid, not after, is typically the best policy.

-- Chuck

P.S. For those of you curious, this is my first attempt to post here on WUS in a style similar to that familiar to what I use when posting in other forums. Eric clued me into an interesting HTML <--> BBCode translator available on line and I'm trying it out. I don't know if it will allow tables or other items but it does speed up ordinary post responses for me. I'll probably be posting more on this side topic as I explore this utility.