Recently there was a Tudor watch at auction, hardly any description and only one bad photo.
http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/au...b-a5a200b92a67
I asked the auction house to send me more information and better pictures, The ones that they sent me weren't much better but I still wasn't detered from bidding. Here are the pictures that they sent me.
Would you have bid, considering the photos?
I did, and got the watch, it's on its way to me now!
A risk, I know, but being mainly a mil-watch collector, and knowing very little of these Tudors which were issued to the Americans, I hope I did right!
This is their description of the watch as on their Invoice ;-)
A rare Tudor Oyster Prince Submariner, no crown guards, large brevet winder, Ref 7016/0 Serial No XXXXXXX with back stampeed 'USN 276747'
I googled the USN serial Nr and found a similar faked one:
http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showt...-Tudor-on-Ebay
Now I am totaly confused !
Hi
I am not an expert in anyway, however I am pretty sure the USN did not mark the back of issued Tudors Subs. (With USN in anycase)
The only marked Tudors were the MN issued versions from France as far as I am aware.
Ask over at MWR there a more loads of guys who know their stuff and should be able to help. (Just noticed you have checked at MWR).
Lovely looking watch in anycase.
John
Last edited by Sinnlover; 17th February 2016 at 15:13.
Thanks for your reply, it's not that I am worried about, as I definately know they were issued and exactly marked like that ;-)
It's the Nr. that has me worried!
https://www.google.de/search?q=USN+T...Tudor+caseback
Last edited by Geronimo; 17th February 2016 at 15:56.
You are correct, there is a watch with the same issue number on Google images
If you follow the link on the image it takes you to a review of the watch.
I hope you can establish if it is an issued watch, but more importantly if it is genuine, the review does not paint a favourable picture of its origin. I thought all 7016s had crown guards, but I could be wrong.
I presume you have seen this site?
http://tudorcollector.com/military/
http://tudorcollector.com/subs/subma...del-7016-7021/
Best of luck.
Yes I would have bid. Quite low incase it turns out as a bitsa.
The movement looks right but the case, case back, hands, rehaut and bezle look a bit odd in the pics, hopefully it is just the pics and it turns out to be the real deal.
I bought a Speedmaster that looked completely fake in the pics, got it home and it was absolutely spot on!
Yes I have seen those links and you are correct in your assumption of the crown guards on a 7016...Originally Posted by Sinnlover
I'm hoping it isn't a 7016, that would be just great !
I have no confidence in the auction house, they don't seem to know much about mil-watches, or vintage watches in general ;-)
The pictures were aweful and as I just wrote, I'm hoping it's a different Ref. No :-)
I have my fingers crossed for you.
Let us see pictures when it arrives
Best of luck
Good luck
Well, the watch arrived, head alone, scratched but working ;-)
The Crystal has turned to a yellowish colour and scratches galore, don't know if I should change it though, as I am hardly likely to wear it?
The script on the dial can only bee seen when at an angle to the light source...Judge yourself :-)
The hands have been replaced at some time in the past.
The SN on the back was stamped, which would be right for the watch. Plenty of watchmaker marks/signatures in the inside caseback.
All in all a good watch I would say ?
Jimmy
The watch looks right but depends what you paid for it. If it was £2k then you've got a good deal. If £10k then you've probably got a bit giddy, although I'm sure from your posts so far that isn't the case.
I do like that watch though, I'm starting to get quite fond of the vintage look.
Looks great, So is it a 7016 without crown guards?
Everyone will want to know what you paid... ;)
Well. I certainly learned something, yes, a 7016/0 without crown guard ;-)
Well, I did pay more than 2K and less than 10K, that much I am prepared to say ;-)
[QUOTE=Geronimo;3883141]Well. I certainly learned something, yes, a 7016/0 without crown guard ;-)
That is also news to me!
It looks lovely, enjoy it. If it were mine I would service it but keep the crystal I like a bit of patina.
As lovely as it looks, it turned out to be a complete fake. I got in touch with the auction house and they are going to take it back, thank god...
Here a passage out of their reply:
"In future we’d suggest you seek further advice before bidding. On this occasion, having looked at the evidence you have presented, as a reputable auction house we will of course refund you upon the return on the watch. "
Hi Jimmy
I did have my suspicions but as I am far from being an expert on vintage Tudors I could not say for definite.
I am glad you have got it sorted and they are refunding you.
It is a very convincing fake, but the lads on here and over on MWR do know their stuff. Every day is a learning day!
Glad to hear the auction house are reimbursing you - lesson learnt for us all!
Were you tempted to refashion that and send it back to them as:As lovely as it looks, it turned out to be a complete fake. I got in touch with the auction house and they are going to take it back, thank god...
Here a passage out of their reply:
"In future we’d suggest you seek further advice before bidding. On this occasion, having looked at the evidence you have presented, as a reputable auction house we will of course refund you upon the return on the watch. "
"In future I'd suggest that as a reputable auction house you seek further advice before offering for sale &c."
Hi OP,
What unmasked it as a complete fake? You were saying 'all in all a good watch' a couple of posts back with the back off the watch.
Genuinely interested to know.
Very good news that you got your money back though.
Agreed. A very disingenuous statement from them. They do have previous though, they had a dodgy Seamaster listed last September. As the member of the forum that brought it to their attention said "I am constantly amazed by the blatant ignorance they display when accepting these pieces of **** for auction!"
Good that they're doing the right thing by the OP anyway.
My hat goes off to the OP for remaining cool as a cucumber throughout and for having a punt on it in the first place.
The auction house's comment is quite an odd and somewhat OTT way of avoiding being self deprecating.
I haven't got it back yet, but am hoping all goes well, as I am sending it back tomorrow.
I did a lot of reading on Tudors, but the thing that gave it away was the 7016/0 marks between the 12:00 lugs...As there were no pictures on the markings between the lugs from the auction house,to be honest, I was hoping it was just a misrepresentation on their behalf, and the watch being a Ref 7924 which appeared on the market in 1958 (which would have been BIG money)... But a 7016/0 from 1958 was impossible, especially with an Eta Movement, they came later;-)
http://www.tudorwatch.com/#/en/histo...ariners-intro/
I presented them with all the facts and they had no option but to take it back, on the grounds of misrepresentation on their part, or risk a court case, which I threatened them with...As it couldn't be a Ref 7016/0!
Jimmy
Last edited by Geronimo; 25th February 2016 at 22:21.
Wow great work on your behalf! Lesson to us all
No, not really, as the auction house concerned seem to sell anything and everything, they can't have a "global" expert on watches especially mil-watches, that I would expect from Bonhams, Crott, Christies, and the like!
Thanks for all the positive remarks so far Gents,
all the best... Jimmy
Last edited by Geronimo; 25th February 2016 at 22:38.
Lesson learnt. Hoofprints usually mean a donkey, not a zebra!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
