Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'American Pocket Watches' started by Ball992B, Nov 4, 2002.
Load of roadapples...
I have had no dealings with this seller but the box looks a heck of a lot like those boxes that someone's been selling on Ebay lately. The BofLE accoutrements are a nice touch but I wouldn't bet the farm that they're antique or vintage.
Maybe it's a test market for the Franklin Mint or something? I have to believe that someone in the short "chain of sellers" knows the history of the box etc. and just isn't telling. Just my opinion of course.
Nice Movement. Real garbage packaging. Rubbish...
the item is a hodgepodge of stuff....
look over on the 149....
I am willing to believe the seller when he says:
"I am selling this item for a watch collecting friend. I stand behind the accuracy of his description with my own eBay feedback reputation.".
At least I am willing to believe the implication that he doesn't know that he is selling a newly engraved watch in a newly created box, but let's see what happens to the auction. I think that all but the most novice collector will know what this is, and the auction will die. Another option is that a bunch of shills will start bidding it up.
Judging from the way the cuts in the metal appear, it looks to me like the engraving was done by an egraving machine-the cutting edge machines are operated by computer and so it is easy to scan a design in and transfer it to metal.
The smoke is still rising from the obvious newly crafted box and wood burnings.
The dial should have a 24hr chapter and not the blocky box car numbers. The movement a 40's the case a 50's or 60's
Yes a real hodge podge. Now watch someone buy it....
I just can't believe there is no official paper work/label to go along with it.
I have edited to include a 3 image link to the proper case, dial and hands. The pic's are click to enlarge...
[This message has been edited by Ball992B (edited 11-05-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Ball992B (edited 11-05-2002).]
Any one see this in the Nati?
My experience with NAWCC marts/seminars & members in general would tell me your friend would have been informed that the Entire package was put together. https://mb.nawcc.org/
Nobody here is saying that you guys are doing anything intentional (We wouldn't want threats of law suits or any such thing). All we have said is that the article is not genuine. You can do with this information what you will. And by the way, I don't think you have to worry about any of us bidding.
President, Indiana Chapter 18 - NAWCC
Member Chapter 149 (Member #105)
It would sure be interesting to find out who sold the watch at the Cincinnati show. The box, engravings, medallions, etc. are indeed very well done and reflect a lot of effort. It just doesn't look like a very old effort. Of course there's nothing wrong with contemporary craftsmanship; I think it's great. It just should be presented as such when known about and sold.
Observe the nice work done by the gentleman that makes the new chronometer boxes. The item being discussed is similar in that it took a lot of effort by someone to design and produce. This product just has more of a slick marketing slant to it rather than being a contemporary, and sometimes necessary, replacement.
The only one who has a chance to trace the origin of this item is the seller or the present owner. But they have to want to.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious teh marking US Government and B of LE are incompatible. B of LE was a commercial operation adn I think a registered mark of the Ball Company. US GOvernment would be engraved on watches bought for government service. NO way would this be a factory configurration.
As to it being sold at a sanctioned NAWCC affair. As a former chapter officer I know that no chapter takes any responsibility for the authenticity or soundness of anything sold there. All it means is that the item was not offensive enough to get the dealer bodily thrown out, which from my experience would be a significant accomplishment.
John Cote says, ?Nobody here is saying that you guys are doing anything intentional?All we have said is that the article is not genuine.?
Don?t know if it?s relevant or not but I believe (hope a lawyer will chime in here) that if you offer for sale on eBay for example a ?Gucci? item that is not genuine you are breaking both a law and an eBay rule, and that lack of intent is not a defense.
I believe the eBay rule applies to property rights of brand holders. SMH currently owns the Hamilton brand but I don't think they have ever taken any action to defend the misuse on older merchandise from the earlier Hamilton Company.
This item would probably be called an "interpretation" rather than a "forgery."
IANAL just my opinion.
NAWCC 2nd VP Candidate
Tommy the JOAT's Web
I think what troubles all of us who collect RR watches is the extreme speculation in a listing such as this. It starts off with...
"Note: I am selling this item for a watch collecting friend. I stand behind the accuracy of his description..."
In the description the serial number is stated as "C44433" and the claim..." I believe this to be in the first run of 992B watches." Reality check... NUMBER C44433 DATES FROM THE THIRD RUN OF 992B MOVEMENTS IN 1942 AND 1943 according to the Hamilton factory records. And for the record the first 992B run, in 1940-41 is C001-C13000 and the second run in 1941-42 is C13001-37900 with the third run being in 1942-43 from C37901-C62800 inclusive, which is where the one in question came from.
Various trinkets are in the box, ho hum... and then we get to the... "Trade Mark Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Standard" engraving on the case-back. As most of us know that is a registered trade mark of the Webb C. Ball Company for use on the dial and movement of "Brotherhood" watches made many years before Hamilton ever considered building the 992B so it has no place being there. If the "engraver" had simply used the "Bof LE" without "Trade Mark" or the word "Standard" that would be one thing, but this is completely unlike anything from the 1940's and the Ball-derived markings would not belong on any regular Hamilton. The words "Trade Mark' and "Standard" with the "BofLE" were lifted from a "Ball-Brotherhood" watch from days of old, no question about it.
And now to the "U.S. GOVT." on the movement. The 992B movements so marked were manufactured for government use at the height of the Second World War. But the seller states...
" I do not know the history of this particular watch, but it could have belonged to a railroad engineer or railroad detective, considering that the movement is marked ?U.S. Government.? I could go on and on about this watch..."
Yeah, and it could have been issued to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, but it wasn't and "railroad detective" what's this guy smokin'? The problem with this description is that it does "go on and on" with one piece of speculation on top of another followed by yet another bit of mis-information.
"Ball992B" posted exactly the right case for this movement, and one of the available dials. As usual he's right on target. The watch movement in question should be properly cased, I'm not sure what to do with the rest. I've often said our members are sharp, but all of you caught on to this one in record time! Congratulations, everybody passed the eye test!
And just when we thought we could roll our pant-legs back down the "watch collecting friend" comes on this MB and tells this "friend-of-a-friend" story with additional speculation that now even includes..."Is it a Franklin (Mint) prototype?" Gee what's next, ..."the dog ate my homework"... comes to mind. I too doubt any NAWCC Member would have tried this scam, it's just too transparent. Let's face it, we all saw right through it. The audacity to say..."My suggestion: If you don't like it, don't bid"... shows a high degree of arrogance and insensitivity that really troubles me.
The seller has some really nice items up for sale, this is not one of them. In my opinion he also runs the risk of being discredited by being caught up with this overblown example. "This is a watch for the serious collector..." Oh, give me a break!
What bothers me most is that a novice collector, or someone buying a gift for a "serious collector" could be taken in by all the smoke and mirrors, the speculation and the puffery. In my opinion, this is another sad commentary on current day selling in America.
Lindell V. Riddle
Just got off the phone with the very polite seller who has stopped the auction due to an error in the listing, "NOT AUTHENTIC AS DESCRIBED" which is the proper thing to do under the circumstances. Unlike the other individual, this gentleman was appreciative and he agreed that our scrutiny is helping both buyers and sellers alike.
This is yet another example of the listing agent not being aware of what he was handling for the other party who it turns out was also not the owner. One of those friend of a friend of a friend doing it for someone else, and a few too many exclamation points got in the way.
Lindell V. Riddle
Kudos to him for that action..... right thing to do...
Good Job!!! https://mb.nawcc.org/
theres more than one of these floating around, see ebay number 1609767735, june 2001. i purchased a 950b that is an exact duplicate of the above on ebay from a nawcc member with high ebay satisfaction numbers. i knew when i purchased the watch that it was a made up unit, but i assumed ( maybe incorectly) that the watch was made up as a presentation unit to be given for retirement etc. i would love to know the story on these. who made them?, when were they made? were they made just to defraud, or did somebody like franklin mint put these together?
I'm troubled by the NAWCC connection to the sale of things that were, if not intended to deceive, at least likely to deceive.
This obviously isn't the proper Forum, but if anyone wants to talk about what (if anything) the NAWCC should do to prevent or remedy deception (intentional or not) by NAWCC members or at Marts, I'd invite them to start a thread on the Election Candidates' Forum. It's troubled me for a long time, and I don't have any good answers.
To address Annie's question: In New Mexico, the last time I check (which was a few deades ago), fraud required (a) a statement known by the maker to be false, which was (b) made with intent to deceive. However, don't bet your life or freedom on my recollection, and I can't speak to the law of any other State.
If you're talking copyright or trademark infringement (e.g. the Gucci bag) that's a whole different question. My impression is that it's against Federal law to sell such items (whether knowingly or not) and that they're subject to confiscation (whether the possessor knows they're infringing, or not). But I'm even shakier on this than on fraud in NM, so don't trust what I say too far.
Sorry, that was way off topic here, too, but the question was asked, and allowed to remain
Petition Candidate for Director
In the situation where a seller inadvertently makes a false statement or assertion, fraud might be difficult to prove. Intent to deceive, or the fact a statement is clearly without any basis in fact is considered an element to fraud. The item in question was mis-represented using outlandish speculation and mis-statements of fact as several of us rather sarcastically pointed out above.
As to where we should discuss such matters here, in my opinion this forum is exactly the place to discuss such matters openly, thereby more clearly understand the boundaries of ethical conduct as we operate to the benefit of horological buyers and sellers alike.
Annie's entirely proper question implied the item in question might be a "fake" and simply stated, to a great degree it is. Particularly so when coupled with the outrageous speculations and mis-representations. This is one reason why, within 40 minutes of all this being explained the listing agent pulled the plug on it.
I disagree that the NAWCC needs to take any further stand on "fakes" as our long-standing position of intolerance in that area is entirely correct. In my opinion this is not a subject to politicize nor is this the proper forum for political discussion. This is where we discuss Horology and increasingly we find ourselves discussing the pitfalls of the Horological Marketplace in which we find ourselves participating.
But politics? Most of us have probably heard a few more political commercials than we can stomach in recent days, and this is one place where we go to get away from politics!
Lindell V. Riddle
Lindell, I think Mike was addressing the use of the NAWCC name and logo by vendors selling outside of NAWCC marts and what rules and ethical standards we might want to see in place.
i.e. could we certify people to use the NAWCC logo? (as an off-the-wall idea.) Or, should we just forbid any references to the NAWCC by sellers. The discussion probably belongs somewhere else because it is not related to pocketwatches.
NAWCC 2nd VP Candidate
Tommy the JOAT's Web
I could see this as a legitimate limited offer package if the watch was one of the new Swiss remakes that are boxed and available. It would have to include some paperwork though.
But this was a put together 992B. The entire offering was a foul ball. BofLE Standard as mentioned was a registered trade mark of the Ball Watch Co. That in itself was a red flag even if the watch was straight.
Sure any chapter or regional event will have put together watches more often than not. No doubt a display with 15 watches will take up 1/5th of the table. This deal on display would take up just as much room by itself. It would be easy to spot and it wouldn't be long before the vendor was cautioned.
The red oak was a "new construction". Burnishing is not nearly as high tech as actual laser carving. There is a local company that laser carves presentation plaques in small quanity. The favored materials here are black walnut and red oak. They will do 1 or 100.