REVOLUTION_International_Vol 54

LEFT
Each time polishing
is done, it removes
material from the
original case, which
can result in noticeable
differences such as
the spacing between
the notched bezel.
RIGHT
A closeup of the 1675
OCC PCG’s dial shows
the cracking of the
varnish on the dial,
a “spider webbing”
that extends across
most of the dial now.
proposed) to make up for the decade of heartache and substantial
financial loss resulting from the damn watch, was tempting. I even sent
the image of the watch to Paul Boutros at Phillips who immediately
spotted the incorrect bezel. In the context of last year when the idea
was put forward, I found myself in sudden need of cash, and so the idea
of auctioning the watch gained appeal. After all, apparently everyone
was doing it. Indeed we went back and forth about the watch with
him showing it to his contacts, but with no one biting. His reputation
had clearly been affected as a result of the legal action. But the more I
thought about it, the more I couldn’t live with the idea of being complicit
in the very thing that had been perpetuated upon me, regardless of the
profit, which was essentially to sell a watch under false pretenses.
RIGHTING IMPERFECTION
I understood that the watch is now ostensibly correct. It has the right
and super rare dial, right hands, movement, case and even bracelet.
It comes with box and papers and supporting documentation — but
it wasn’t born that way. It was created to generate a highly profitable
narrative. Finally, its NOS condition was also a falsehood as it was
created specifically to look like an old, unmolested watch when it was
anything but. Indeed, if anything, at the moment the case looks a little
too new, which jars with the clearly aged and patinated dial, which,
under magnification, shows the faint traces of “spider webbing”, or
cracks in the surface varnish. It was J who alerted me to the fact that the
watch had been rejected by many of his buyers because of this spider
webbing. This confused me as, being someone obsessive compulsive
about details, it was a detail I would have noticed before the watch
became part of this complex swapping of parts. And then it dawned on
me that I hadn’t really looked at the watch since it was restored.
At the end of last year, J passed me the Rolex and, quite honestly,
I wasn’t particularly motivated to look at it. Then, as I solidified my
resolve to not sell the watch and use it as the basis of this story, I
decided to take it out of the safe and start photographing it. Now once
its serial numbers are shown to the world, as I have every intention
of doing, the watch will, for all intents and purposes, be unsellable as
it will be a matter of public record that it has been the focus of both
Frankenwatching and also an attempt to bring it back to NOS quality.
So once I made peace with the fact that my five-digit sterling investment
in this watch was to be reduced to zero, I informed J that we would not
be selling the watch and that I was going to go public with the entire
story behind it. That was when something really disturbing happened.
As my team and I began to examine the watch in earnest and
take microscopic photographs of its details, we discovered that the
“spiderweb” cracking on the varnish of the dial was pervasive and
covered the entire dial — something I was certain was not there before
this entire process began. Just as disastrous, it appears that J never even
had the case laser welded before it was recut, because the bevel on the
bottom right lug is now touching the hole for the spring bar — meaning
that, in his laziness, he hadn’t even bothered to have this area built back
up. Indeed if you look at the profile of the case, you would be able to see
that the distance between the spring-bar hole on the upper-right lug is
farther from the bevel, meaning there is more material between these
two elements than in the lower right. What J had described as a NOS
watch was essentially a badly botched facelift. In the end, a palpable
sense of relief washed over me as I had almost played a part in trying to
pass off a poorly — I would even say laughably — refinished watch as
something that was in original condition.
So where does this leave me? Well firstly, I hope that sharing this
information with you has made you a little more circumspect and
discerning about vintage watches, and that you understand that if these
technologies can be used for Rolexes, they can also be used for Pateks or
anything else of value. Indeed I know of one Italian dealer who famously
and very proudly had the case of a pink-gold 2499 recut. Hopefully, this
will be something of a wakeup call to the vintage watch industry and they
will begin to put in place greater safeguards and transparency.
Is there a way to avoid the pitfalls that I experienced? Well, the old
146 VINTAGE