zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

[quote=Chicagoland Chuck Maddox;542757]

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

[/quote]

Thanks for the response, Chuck

One of my comments above was that no one on TZ had replied. Stan Sirody just did, with a glowing recommendation of how talented Antiquorum is. I don't like having reasonable questions ignored.

I am not accusing Antiquorum or Omega of any wrongdoing, nor am I particularly angry or upset. I am somewhat disappointed that my usual cynicism has been reaffirmed. I am disappointed in the lack of transparency in the auction process, and disappointed Antiquorum did not make available online the information provided on site bidders regarding Omega's purchases.

About these lots . . .

"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong as when you find a trout in the milk." Henry David Thoreau, 1817-1862

How do we know Antiquorum didn't own the unlabeled lots?

As I have observed, there is an Antiquorum auction next weekend. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.