Particularly, about how the world has changed.

I would say that years ago, say in the 1940's or 50's, I would bet that most, when first hearing about the 5510 story, would be inclined to believe it, with maybe a few doubters.

Now, the situation has flip-flopped:the cynics and sceptics are many, but can they be blamed? There are so many fakes, scammers, and no-goodniks out there looking for victims the one would be a fool not to have their radar working at full-tilt.

When we hear a story like this, it is heart-warming, but sadly infrequent. Can we ever return to a time when people mostly trust one another again?

Cheers,

Bob

...and we saw some of both on this watch. I don't understand the motivation to trash this watch and, as Vijay points out, it's owner. Jealousy? Trying to kill the value and buy it cheap? Simple meanness? I just don't get it.

The level of viciousness was off the charts, one poster even went so far as to knowingly post a falsehood about the movement being incorrect. That was caught but the big question remains, why would he do that? His loss of credibility is enormous. What was it about this deal that drove a couple of our Members so crazy?

.

You have good points there. Greed is terrible, bad manners too. Now...these two together is plain nasty!

quite frankly, there were people screaming from the rooftops that the watch was worth $80k. where were they when the hammer came down? nowhere close as we can see.
looking at the dial from Bob's (Ridleys) pictures I was surprised to see it was pristine, and the crystal was what was causing the dial to look bad. the case is another story.
What's at issue is what is "realistic" when looking at that particular watch in it's current condition. this watch was worn, and while it is charming that Bob owned this watch and wore it as a watch should be worn, IMO the money it brought was in the "higher end" ballpark for an end user.
Yes, I can hear the "auction watchers" getting ready to pounce, but we are looking once again at a "two tier" market.
I know all the "big watch" dealers and not one of them would put up that kind of money. Now, had they bought the watch cheap, would they sell it for less...well, your guess is as good as mine! lol

all I am saying is kind of what Bob Gordon is saying and that is we need to have this kind of skepticism, and I agree 100%. For every one of these deals that is correct and true, I can name plenty who have been drawn in by a story and been burned, including me.

as far as purposefully sabotaging, that is just not true. Viper not following up on someone else's investigation and story before posting, yes, that is correct. Bad move on his part, but to say it was on purpose is not fair. this is a guy who has saved many a member from buying fake crap, as we all do who care.
None of us could care less about the story. the watch has to stand on it's own merit. misinformation is not a good thing, but claiming this is an $80k watch just for shit's and giggles when you know not what you speak is not right either.
The market will dictate what something is worth to a particular buyer, as it did here.
To the new owner, many congratulations.

JB

Since you used Arthur's name I will too. Arthur made a post stating there was a report of a 1570 movement in the watch knowing full well that "report" was a misprint, he knew it was a misprint because he's the one who pointed out to the publisher of the article it was a mistake. The publisher quickly made the correction but Arthur chose to repeat it here to further reduce the credibility of the 5510. The only thing that got reduced was Arthur's credibility.

.

as usual found the mistake and told him about it. He then edited the post to read a 1530 not a 1570 caliber a day later and it made it's way on VRF.

If I had not pointed out that a wrong caliber was in his article. Then the original report saying it had a 1570 caliber would have been posted a day later on VRF.

I did not know that it was mistake till the author of the article on my forum thanked me for catching it. As all the members assumed the author did his homework and was correct.

Rich I thought you and I straightened that out..When I repeated what was in the report on VRF, I had no idea that he corrected the mistake( which it turned out to be) that I found in his report.. But he actually thought it had a 1570 caliber in the 5510..He should done his homework before posting wrong info..

not sure what the flap is about?..Arthur

http://rolexnessreviews.blogspot.com/

and running an unjustified lobbying campain against someone's watch.
An a lobbying campaign is what I saw.

all I said was it was in no way, shape or form an $80k watch. and in the end, it was not.

when prices dropped 40%.
I hate seeing anyone pay for something and get stuck. markets are tricky and emotions can help/hinder a buy/sale.
I keep things very cut and dry with my people who come to me asking where they should be. some agreee with me, others think I am crazy.
as far as I can tell, there are not too many people out there who bought something from me and got stuck.

...from you, via your "keen" eyes

Wholeheartedly agree. However it is a virtual community that we live in here, making it practically impossible to develop the same kind of social confidence as we would in the real world.

This virtual trust is built upon a platform so fragile, all it takes is someone (remember Jason Latif?) with a lesser mind who is into this game for personal gain, and exploit others for one's own benefit, then this whole platform would collapse, leaving us all hanging up high and dry.

To quote: VRF Membership is a social designation. It in no way implies the VRF has vetted a seller or approves of a seller. Always use due diligence prior to completing a transaction... or put it another way... you are on your own.

vintage watch should stand on it's own merit. Quality of the case, dial, hands, and if any papers are attached to it more love in the room.

But I still do not understand why a story backdrop was so forced onto the scene with this 5510? Maybe a big time celebrity ownership could be mentioned, but the watch should stand on it's own in my opinion.

Not to be a party crasher, but many nicer 5510's have been sold at auction over the years and with not much fanfare.

Just food for thought, Arthur

http://rolexnessreviews.blogspot.com/

To each his own. Some people like to dream and if I had to choose in
between 2 watches, one perfect and one almost perfect but with full pedigree
and a nice hguman story behind, I would choose the second one with no hesitation.

Collecting is not only about perfection it is also about emotion.

not wise my friend...

.

especially when they spend it with me! llol
as a dealer I try to keep things objective and rational.
I see many scammers and look at all deals with a very keen "subjective" eye.

..just presenting the facts to refute the blatantly egregious falsehood perpetuated by you and few others. You are free to email me and we can discuss this in private.

I have many action pictures of my PN and 6538 on my wrist racing cars, at parties and in social settings. Now will that help sell my watch in ten years with my personal photos? Or will quality and papers be a factor in the sale?

http://rolexnessreviews.blogspot.com/

sold for almost $100K yesterday, the "bobble's" 5510 on e-bay should have sold for double that because it is in far superior condition then the example sold at Christie's. I'll go even further, having seen the Christie's watch in person on Monday, and seeing now the photos of the "bobble's" watch, I can unequivocally say they are not even in the same league! Bobble's watch is truly a spectacular example and the new owner got a bargain. Furthermore, I will admit I was one of the skeptics and I was truly humbled ( not easily accomplished with me) when I read Vijay's post. The only thing I feel bad about now is that I did not bid on "bobble's" watch.

was over the top, as well as the a wrong initial report about the watch..I just was focusing on the quality of the watch..which was not faltering in the ebay pics nor description.
In my opinion 66K in this economy for the ebay 5510 is a lot of bread..and 100 K is wonderful retail price.

A

http://rolexnessreviews.blogspot.com/

it is at Christie's but not OK to spend $66K on a much superior watch because it is on E-bay? I hope it holds true in the future because I'd love to buy such great stuff on e-bay for cheap.

i wanna know how vijay got to be there and see that cool watch the same time the doc showed up!

>>

Especially due to your stance on the watch and seller's story, it only makes sense.

Tim

A

http://rolexnessreviews.blogspot.com/

...and seller. And I can tell you, the good people far outnumber the scammers. A little communication and some specific questioning can usually determine the one from the other pretty quickly. That's not to say that when scammers strike it is not damaging. I think of the huge long con-type rip off that Jason Latif perpetrated and the damage he did to the hobby out of either desperation or malice and I still get a chill. But that kind of betrayal is actually far and away the exception and not the rule. The day-to-day scammer is more like a mosquito to be brushed away--an annoyance, yes, but not a very threatening one.

So, to turn a phrase: Verify, then trust. And I think this was ever so. There were plenty of scam artists in the 40s and 50s, too.

Life itself is a risky proposition but to play in this arena, you've got to be willing to take a leap of faith on the other fellow's character sometimes, albeit after plenty of due diligence first. Far more often than not, people are genuinely decent and honest. A few rotten apples with a bit more reach in the age of the Internet don't make that statement any less true now than it was 50-60 years ago, in my opinion.

Best regards,
Tom

the same story. without trust in some form live becomes miserable. fakers always had an impact; they revived the comeback of the big auction houses and therefore higher prices ,that attract even more fakers...... kind reegards from Oz. achim