Jump to content
  • Sign Up to reply and join the friendliest Watch Forum on the web. Stick around, get to 50 posts and gain access to your full profile and additional features such as a personal messaging system, chat room and the sales forum PLUS the chance to enter our regular giveaways.
scottswatches

Warning - Sotheby's selling 'fake' watch knowingly

Recommended Posts

If there is no intention to mislead, why don't they just spell it out in layman's terms that it's a fake? Hiding behind 'legal niceties' is not nice.

Edited by Caller.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammered for £4,000, plus 25% fees.

Without the name on there I would think it would be worth £2k as an interesting watch and movement, but I am not anything close to a pocket watch expert

Caveat emptor everybody!

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think even a foolish person that does no research before buying, should be pretected from misrepresentation.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Autonomous said:

I think even a foolish person that does no research before buying, should be pretected from misrepresentation.

I cant see a misrep, no even innocent never mind negligent or fraudulent, Its described with the name the manufacturer gives to a fake. 

3 hours ago, scottswatches said:

Hammered for £4,000, plus 25% fees.

Without the name on there I would think it would be worth £2k as an interesting watch and movement, but I am not anything close to a pocket watch expert

Caveat emptor everybody!

Hope they didnt think it was real Scott...it might not be 'right' but i can't see them having any legal recource, hence the doctrine of Jurisprudence, Law and Morality rarely are the same thing. 

3 hours ago, Caller. said:

If there is no intention to mislead, why don't they just spell it out in layman's terms that it's a fake? Hiding behind 'legal niceties' is not nice.

they have in accordance with the name applied by the manufacturer. 

to a fake, they have applied it to the watch word for word. 

they have done what they were told to do, no law involved. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have to add though from my compassionate side...i hope whoever paid 4 grand for it didnt think it was a Breguet. Rather than a Breguet of Paris or whatever is applied. I guess there might be a few tears at 4 grand. Oh well, win some lose some. 

:statue-of-liberty:eifel towers for sale by the yanks

and thats in Germany. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they have deliberately set out to deceive to increase interest and therefore commission personally. Bad form imho

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Nigelp said:

Breguet à Paris

If you Google this it's all about "Breguet" . Not about Breguet à Paris.

Telling anyone "green" doing a bit of online fact checking, how wonderfully exquisite and expensive Breguet watches are.

Bet the seller's chuffed.

Edited by WRENCH
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WRENCH said:

If you Google this it's all about "Breguet" . Not about Breguet à Paris.

Telling anyone "green" doing a bit of online fact checking, how wonderfully exquisite and expensive Breguet watches are.

Bet the seller's chuffed.

ok you win i give in. Hope the buyer gets their money back asap. :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. Looking at the Breguet site, they say that several manufacturers made watches using Breguet as part of the name and that there were more of these made  than made by Breguet.

Now....is this a fake or a homage? 

Maybe Southeby's  could or should have made it clear that this was not made by Breguet but the brand is not really main stream (like Rolex) and the auction would be more likely to attract collectors than the casual buyer and they would probably know about the various fakes/homages made at that time.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, richy176 said:

Interesting thread. Looking at the Breguet site, they say that several manufacturers made watches using Breguet as part of the name and that there were more of these made  than made by Breguet.

Now....is this a fake or a homage? 

Maybe Southeby's  could or should have made it clear that this was not made by Breguet but the brand is not really main stream (like Rolex) and the auction would be more likely to attract collectors than the casual buyer and they would probably know about the various fakes/homages made at that time.

 

Yep , I mentioned this issue to a mate of mine who collects many thinks antique and he is of the opinion that the prospective buyers know full well what they are buying in this instance. His words were along the lines of "anyone who participates in an auction for an 1800s antique item costing thousands will know full well what they are bidding for".

He also pointed out that if it was "fake and worthless as an imposter" then it would have been melted down many decades ago and salvaged.

I still think both parties in this are not exactly being straight. Which is disappointing but ultimately I doubt it will cost anyone through out and out deception. 

I think Breguet have got the desired effect of using the word "fake" ... in that we are all talking about this.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually when its a rare item or a specialist item a Judge will presume that knowledge was present. If we do have the scenario which @WRENCH suggests and can prove it, there would be a better chance of success. If the buyer is a private individual rather than a business they have a better chance of success in contract for frustration due to a vitiating factor (mistake, misrep undue influence etc). It would all be down to what would be reasonable from the Advert. Its not a detailed advert, should the buyer have relied upon it? Should they have taken expert advice? Would it be reasonable to compensate them for the difference between what they got and thought they were getting?

Had it simply said Breguet then it would have been wrong, but they have used the wording Breguet themselves use to identify a fake. 

The buyer would probably be better claiming for a breach due to a mistake i cant see any misrep. It might be possible to go for Unilateral Mistake? In so much as in the @WRENCH example the buyer was mistaken as to the term of the contract relating to it being a Breguet no a Breguet a Paris which they manufacturer state is a fake and which the auction house have rightly used, never the less and withstanding that they have described it correctly. So there is likely no misrep, then a Private buyer, not acting in the course of business, who did not inspect the goods and acted without any knowledge other than to think it was a Breguet, then that may be reasonable and we might get the contract cancelled but not frustrated due to a unilateral mistake. Its possible. But im sure an action for Misrep would be unsuccessful. Because the auction house have used word for word what they were told to to describe a fake. So unilateral mistake would be best. Forget it if you are acting in the course of business, the court would likely dismiss it and you would have defence fees to pay also, along with court costs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WRENCH said:

Anyone on here buy it then ? :baby:

it will be interesting to see won't it! Or if there is an outcome else where, like Scott said Caveat Emptor. Its there to stop people doing things without due thought, 4 grand is a lot of money to commit by the knowledgeable or otherwise from a brief description. I dont think these things should be relied on alone, maybe for a hundred quid seiko...but a 4 grand 200 year old pocket watch lol.  

the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made.

I wonder if Sotheby's reputation will be damaged by the claims made in the thread against them? I wonder whether they would want to defend them if they were? I doubt it, I doubt the forum is well enough publicised for these to cause any real damage to their reputation, but it could it is foreseeable they could. Again I think its defend-able on the basis comments are only opinion. I don't think they would be worried. If they same claims were made in say a newspaper with a wide circulation and it did damage business, then I could see them wanting to mount a Legal challenge to dispute the allegations made. Would they be successful? Who knows they are the ones with the money and clever lawyers. I would not want to go up against them unless I had total possession of all facts including statements from the disgruntled party. If there isn't one in this instance and the buyer is happy, it could be damaging on both sides. Though fortunately the audience of the forum is probably sufficiently restricted to prevent significant damage to reputations. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Nigelp said:

Usually when its a rare item or a specialist item a Judge will presume that knowledge was present. If we do have the scenario which @WRENCH suggests and can prove it, there would be a better chance of success. If the buyer is a private individual rather than a business they have a better chance of success in contract for frustration due to a vitiating factor (mistake, misrep undue influence etc). It would all be down to what would be reasonable from the Advert. Its not a detailed advert, should the buyer have relied upon it? Should they have taken expert advice? Would it be reasonable to compensate them for the difference between what they got and thought they were getting?

Had it simply said Breguet then it would have been wrong, but they have used the wording Breguet themselves use to identify a fake. 

The buyer would probably be better claiming for a breach due to a mistake i cant see any misrep. It might be possible to go for Unilateral Mistake? In so much as in the @WRENCH example the buyer was mistaken as to the term of the contract relating to it being a Breguet no a Breguet a Paris which they manufacturer state is a fake and which the auction house have rightly used, never the less and withstanding that they have described it correctly. So there is likely no misrep, then a Private buyer, not acting in the course of business, who did not inspect the goods and acted without any knowledge other than to think it was a Breguet, then that may be reasonable and we might get the contract cancelled but not frustrated due to a unilateral mistake. Its possible. But im sure an action for Misrep would be unsuccessful. Because the auction house have used word for word what they were told to to describe a fake. So unilateral mistake would be best. Forget it if you are acting in the course of business, the court would likely dismiss it and you would have defence fees to pay also, along with court costs. 

In simpler terms - if the buyer is a plonker (as Del Boy would say).

Should this thread be moved to `free talk'?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, richy176 said:

In simpler terms - if the buyer is a plonker (as Del Boy would say).

Should this thread be moved to `free talk'?

 

 I would tend to err on the side of caution in respect of both parties and yes it might be better in a protected part of the forum, i doubt anything will come of it, its not really significant, but no point inviting trouble, the watch is sold now. 

Edited by Nigelp
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Caller. said:

If there is no intention to mislead, why don't they just spell it out in layman's terms that it's a fake? Hiding behind 'legal niceties' is not nice.

   used to be only rolex were "faked".   i got my first faked seiko recently.   everthing is being faked now.  we should change the words to "copy"  and call the real watches as "original".    vin

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my view that the auction house have been irresponsible here.. How hard for them was it to add, 'this watch is not made by Breguet'. Thus stopping a speculative non-WIS thinking he's getting the bargain of a lifetime.

It's not about legal arguments, it's about common decency.

Poor form by Sotheby's in my book.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, its all opinion but they are in the business of selling in accordance with customer requirements and they have to balance that interest with those of the seller, so the description they used as provided by the manufacturer was fairly neutral. Many business sellers would tend to protect their business interests. Profits maybe considered by them in circumstances regarding a sale and information disclosed to either a seller to them or buyer from them, in circumstances which contravene our feelings of what is right, perhaps this does? But look at from the original owners points of view. Would describing as fake be fair to them if it was a commission sale, it brings us back to the age of the watch and its vintage status in its own right. If we consider that it should have only sold for the estimate which was lower than the actual sale wasn't it? But the speculative WIS in that case was unfortunate and perhaps only acting for their own greed in profiting, should we hold this above the interests of the original owner? Perhaps the auction house took a neutral stance which was not committal either way merely describing it as the manufacturer would have. 

Therefore protecting the interests and confidentiality of a seller client and allowing a buyer to make their own mind up from a description which is freely available and easily found to define a fake. 

As given on the manufacturers site. 

It would possibly need a challenge from the manufacturer as to whether in applying their description and no more was acceptable to them and then for that assertion to be challenged in order to reach an outcome fair to all parties. Original owner, auction house, manufacturer and buyer. 

The price paid is perhaps relevant if it was well above estimate thats probably what you should be concentrating on rather than morality of the situation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caller. said:

It's my view that the auction house have been irresponsible here.. How hard for them was it to add, 'this watch is not made by Breguet'. Thus stopping a speculative non-WIS thinking he's getting the bargain of a lifetime.

It's not about legal arguments, it's about common decency.

Poor form by Sotheby's in my book.

Agree completely, it would cost nothing for the auction house to describe it as "original period parts and manufacture, but please note this piece was not made by Breguet" or something similar. Hiding behind legalise is just a way of hoping it'll go for a lot more with no comeback on them. It stinks frankly. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plot thickens with this "brand" ... it appears Meuron were subcontracted to make not only movements for Breguet for a period of time , but possibly also made watches for them. Could this be evidence of an 1800s IP spat between two Gentleman who once were business bedfellows !?

The B.a.P branded pocket watches are consistently fetching around the £15,000 mark for very good examples so this is not evidence of a fools market in my opinion. 

Information does seem scare but there are a couple of experts attached to some of these auction houses dotted around the globe , so I guess they could shed more light.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JonnyOldBoy said:

The plot thickens with this "brand" Could this be evidence of an 1800s IP spat between two Gentleman who once were business bedfellows !?

It does appear that a lot of events in this particular makers history has been conveniently ‘airbrushed’ ?

When he left his master & mentors (Abraham-Louis Perrelet) workshop to set up shop himself, he used movements supplied by Perrelet.

True credit for the Tourbillon invention ?...

John Arnold, Coventry, England. 

:)

 

What are those flashing blue lights outside Karrusel Towers :boxing:

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JonnyOldBoy said:

The B.a.P branded pocket watches are consistently fetching around the £15,000 mark for very good examples so this is not evidence of a fools market in my opinion. 

there are also some less than £1k.  I suppose it depends on the calibre of the watch. Did Breguet invent the pun ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well "the value" of an auctioned item is only worth what two bidders are prepared to pay ...... and you would imagine the bidder and under bidder had researched the lot if they were prepared to go to £4000 (like @scottswatches did)

I wonder what would have happened to the hammer price on the "Banksy Artwork"... had it shredded before the the hammer went down ..... They reckon it's worth twice as much as the hammer price now.... so the winning bidder kept it ..... don't quite know what would happen should it go under the hammer again ? .... if it shredded again would it be worth more?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...