zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Hewybaby Posts: Re: SomeThoughts in an older butprobably familiar format...

Originally Posted by eptaz

Ok, let's look at this minor point (IMO). I'm sure that I don't know what happens to props, even those promotional props, after filming. Does the actor keep them? The director? Do they become property of the studio? Does the crew hold a raffle? Are they grabbed up by ambitious collectors (of movie memorabilia or of time pieces)? Do they go back to the manufacturer? Maybe a single line in a bloated merchandizing contract could reveal thetruth, but I don't know.

Yeah, that would've been nice, but it's not evidence of impropriety.
Agreed. It may well be possible that Antiquorum phoned Omega said "Omega Themeatic Auction --- We'd like to get some very cool pieces". Omega may have said "Hey, we can put you in touch with some people who have the watches used in Casino Royale"... Nothing wrong with that. Indeed Omega MAY have been the owner of those items. And put them up for auction. I'm not sure that's a big deal either. If they put them up for auction and then also bid on them, that's something different. But there is no solid evidence of that, but suspicions seemingly abound.
Now, even if we take that leap and assume that all the above is fact, that still leaves the question of whether Omega bid on their own property. Consider the numbers. Of the 300 lots, about 150 were from identified sources. Omega bid on 80 of those 300. To me, it doesn't seem reasonable to conclude that they musthave bid on their own lots.
Conclude? No that's not a reasonable conclusion, but it's a reasonable possibility. It would be interesting to know which lots were lots Omega offered and which lots Omega bid on.
eric

Agreed. [to Eric, not me]

I don't mind that Omega bought lots. I wish I had known that Omega was buying pieces -- which I apparently would have had I been on site. Bidding by phone and internetI did not know.
To be frank, with it known that Marco Richon had been buying pieces for the past couple of years, it would be a reasonable assumption that Omega would possibly bid on some of the lots being offered.
I was unaware of the practice of watch companies bidding in their own thematic auctions.
I wouldn't have any problem with Ford bidding on cars offered in a Ford only car auction. The choice of theme was Antiquorum's not Omega's. It's not likely that Omega would find pieces of it's history to bid on in a Rolex or Patek themed auction.
I am now doubly suspicious that Omega only supplied10 watches to Omegamania.
I wouldn't be surprised if Omega supplied all of the individual lot's you've mentioned in this thread Sam.
37 "SCHÜTZENFEST BERN 1910 - MONTRE DETIR"
38 "GEOMETRIC"
39 "GEOMETRIC"
45 PORTRAIT OF "RAS TAFARI"
75 "CHRONOTACHYMETER"
79 "TACHOMETER CHRONOGRAPH"
211 "ALASKA PROJECT"
226 "THE MATTINGLY SPEEDMASTER"
275 "DOUBLE EAGLE"
298 THE "TOMORROW NEVER DIES" SEAMASTER &endash; ACTUAL WATCH WORN BY PIERCE BROSNAN DURING THEFILMING -

Have you mentioned the Platinum "Marine 1/1" Sam? That watch seemingly was manufactured expressly for Omegamania.

And they didn't supply the No 1 Central Tourbillon from 2007, etc. or any of the other 139 watches including 7more No. 1s?
Seems like a reach to disbelieve Omega didn't have a hand in their availability.
I guess I need to plan on fly fishing in my breakfast cereal tomorrow.
[smirk]
Minor point -- yes, probably.

More of the same somewhat deceptive but legal practices to promote the brand -- yes,definitely.
Is anyone truly surprised?
This is a misuse of this concept, but there is a principle used in testing alternative theorums.

Occam's razor

The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law ofsuccinctness"):

" entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one".
An oldie but a goodie! One of my favorites by the way...
What's the simplest solution to explain all of these exceptional watches ending up in an auction that benefits the Swatch Group and Omega most of all?

They came from the Swatch Group . . . .
There is the Tom Clancy exception to that though...

"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." -- Tom Clancy

In other words... The simpliest explanation may well be the easiest fit, but it isn't necessarily the only fit nor is it necessarily the truth of the matter. It might be the smartest money though.

-- Chuck