PCG 1675 on ebay

[greekbum]

Seller describes this as : It hails from 1964 and appears to be in original vintage condition.
The Dial ,hands and bracelet to name a few parts are not ORIGINAL to the watch.
The dial and hands are latter replacements, as originals would be gilt and the bracelet is from the late 70's early 80's.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1960...item35b5f4f4e6

[springer]

Good catch Greek. Sadly though, this is another GMT from hessfineauctions which have had ebay listings discussed several times here in the Watchout section. They have a propensity, or problem, with incorrect descriptions for GMT's. Makes you wonder what is going on there with the person doing the listing.

The watch is described in the auction as "It hails from 1964 and appears to be in original vintage condition." As you noted, the dial is a replacement dial and the band is not correct for circa 1964. This is not original condition. With that being said, potential buyers should bid accordingly.

[toph]

i got one more for you... it is the wrong movement too for a 64 GMT with PCG like this one. should be a 1560/65 not the 1570/5.

[tudorman8276]

...seller says: "It hails from 1964 and appears to be in original vintage condition."

...and also: "You can count on us to be factual..."

...have to agree with John and Greek about the dial and band.

...however, the 1675 WAS available in BOTH the 1565 and 1575 as shown in 2 different references.

...notwithstanding this, it is common sense that the 1565 was most likely in the earliest models.

...problem is, the references do not differentiate between the serial numbers etc.

...in FAIRNESS to ALL potential buyers, they obviously NEED to revise the listing to be COMPLIANT with their own "You can count on us to be factual...".

[tudorman8276]

dial.JPG

[buffy]

The 1575 movement was introduced in 1965, so for a 1964 it should be a 1565 movement.
But am no GMT expert. http://gmtmasterhistory.com/gmt-master_ref_1675.html

[toph]

Originally Posted by buffy

The 1575 movement was introduced in 1965, so for a 1964 it should be a 1565 movement.
But am no GMT expert. http://gmtmasterhistory.com/gmt-master_ref_1675.html

yes and that is that very very earliest they would have been in production IMHO

[tudorman8276]

Originally Posted by buffy

The 1575 movement was introduced in 1965, so for a 1964 it should be a 1565 movement.
But am no GMT expert. http://gmtmasterhistory.com/gmt-master_ref_1675.html

[jeff hess]

hi all,

As always thanks for the private heads up on this....(please feel free to email Katrina directly at our ebay site or me via PM if you see anything weird on our site. Thanks! Looks like this one was mildy misdiscribed especially the date of the manufacturing (iut was 1963).

After all the watch IS genuine of course. Many dials have been replaced over the years on many watches on ebay. But eh dial is genuine and the entire watch is genuine Rolex, wold you all agree?

I guess the crux of the issue is the term "all original" and I will suggest to Katrina that the posters quit using that term as who really konws how many Rolexes sold on ebay have never had a new genuine dial or new hands put on them during a factory cleaning and refurb.

As all of you know, I do not do descriptions on things for ebay and do not do ebay at all really....(rarely) .

This one "may" have had a replacement dial ...we have left a message with the original owner and will post what he says about the watch.

Springer is wrong btw...he loves to point out the occasional mistakes that our posters make....and say "there they go again..." "serial poor sellers" etc.

he loves this. Go back and look at his posts. in fact, our record is terrific on ebay and we are one of the top 5 dealers and RARELY have a watch that is misdescribed. 99% of our watches never get cited on here. But to listen to Springer we are serial murderers. :)

The watch wil be taken down and relisted but not because it is fraudulent or terribly mis described but because the date is incorrect (I just checked) and the GENUINE dial and GENUINE hands and GENUINE dial may have been misdescribd as "original". They ARE ORIGINAL ROLEX of course. (The band is gneuine but appears later)

Cheers!

J.Hess

[jeff hess]

oops! and the calibre is 1560. The poster did not open the watch......she was told by the watchmakers that this watch "should" have a different movement.

definitely described wrong but genuinely a watch that is genuine and ALL ROLEX.

Sorry about that.

Have fun Springer (whoever you are!)

[jeff hess]

Once again, thanks for the private "heads up" on this one.

had a nice "sit-down" with this particular poster... a rel nice girl and one of our smartest..

she has also been using a website called watchgeek.com for her dating and calibre info.

Looks like a pretty good site...not sure what went wrong there.

I am not always in my office (and the hess fine art offices are several doors down the street) but I will try to have the posters come down to see me on vintage so Springer does not get his panties in a wad.

Sorry about this.

Again, the watch was ALL ROLEX.

Katrina has directed all of the posters to show the movement on vintage also.
Cheers!

Jeff

[toph]

Thanks for responding, i appreciate it when sellers respond
it is the statements like 'appears to be in original vintage condition' that is just plain wrong. It looks like a nice all original rolex no doubt at all, but a Matte dial was not available until 67 at the earliest for a start... anyway thats all been covered.

And of course wrong movement was declared which i pointed out. It is not the end of the world but you know as well as us that all the Rubbish being sold on ebay is pretty worrying, so its better IMHO to stand out from them and be as accurate as you can be... or else us geeks will get you

[jeff hess]

Christopher,

She has been told (this afternoon) the subtle difference between "original Rolex" and "original vintage condition".

She has relaunched it.


Thanks.

Jeff

[toph]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Christopher,

She has been told (this afternoon) the subtle difference between "original Rolex" and "original vintage condition".

She has relaunched it.


Thanks.

Jeff

Good on you, i have no issue with people making mistakes. AS you know rolex is our passion and subtle differences can mean a few thousand dollars one way or the other in this trade. I do not think you or your employees are trying to misrepresent anything on purpose/with intent at all. It happens in everything, just so happens we care alot about about rolex and description being 100% accurate; as i am sure you do too

[springer]

Mr. Hess, while taking shots at me doesn't change any of the facts presented here, I know of no other member here on TRF who has had their auctions become a topic of attention in the Watchout Section more than hessfineauctions. That is a fact, just like the discrepancies noted in this auction. The only thing correct on this watch we discussed here was the case, which is as far from original as it can get.

If you need help with future ebay listings, many of us are here to lend a helping hand. I, for one, would be more than happy to provide you with any reviews of your GMT listings or the one noted below.

Here is a Submariner listed by hessfineauction with a replacement dial and hands, which are not "genuine early" as noted in the title of the listing. A novice buyer would not know these are replacement parts. Would you correct this listing please.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Genuine-Earl...item35b62427c4

[springer]

Originally Posted by toph

Good on you, i have no issue with people making mistakes. AS you know rolex is our passion and subtle differences can mean a few thousand dollars one way or the other in this trade. I do not think you or your employees are trying to misrepresent anything on purpose/with intent at all. It happens in everything, just so happens we care alot about about rolex and description being 100% accurate; as i am sure you do too

Well put Toph.

[jeff hess]

Originally Posted by springer

Mr. Hess, while taking shots at me doesn't change any of the facts presented here, I know of no other member here on TRF who has had their auctions become a topic of attention in the Watchout Section more than hessfineauctions. That is a fact, just like the discrepancies noted in this auction. The only thing correct on this watch we discussed here was the case, which is as far from original as it can get.

If you need help with future ebay listings, many of us are here to lend a helping hand. I, for one, would be more than happy to provide you with any reviews of your GMT listings or the one noted below.

Here is a Submariner listed by hessfineauction with a replacement dial and hands, which are not "genuine early" as noted in the title of the listing. A novice buyer would not know these are replacement parts. Would you correct this listing please.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Genuine-Earl...item35b62427c4

--------

Well this is my last post on this...but you may be right Mr. Myterious Springer. Perhaps if we knew who you were we would tear yours apart. And yes, my wifes auction are scrutinized on here with you being the the most prolific. Your agenda is clear. percentage wise, Katrinas auctions are the highest rated for accuracy. And on the subject watch, all (even those on this forum) agreed it was mostly the terminology that was the problem. The watch is 100 percent Rolex. All agreed. The posters saying vintage original was the only problem.
You are as usual, My Mysterious man Soringer, making a mountain out of a molehill.

I know have little else to do, but this my last post on the subject.

Cheers!

Jeff

[springer]

The GMT discussed here was re-listed on ebay by hessfineauctions. It does not mention the replaced dial, hands or band. Further, it does not state it contains the incorrect movement. http://www.ebay.com/itm/230689473596...84.m1423.l2649

The new listing mentions the caliber and date (what does that mean) and reads as follows:

I acknowledge that I made a mistake with the date and caliber on this Rolex when it was listed before. I apologize for any stress this may have caused any previous bidders. On a personal note, I will NEVER purposfully misrepresent a watch, and I always describe them to the best of my ability. The information has been corrected and if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email me.

Now, how about that Submariner Jeff?

[Kringkily]

lol ooooo

[tudorman8276]

[tudorman8276]

...Jeff, shouldn't your listing DISCLOSE the fact that this is NOT the original dial, but a later one???

...especially, for the uninformed and prospective BUYER of such a normally HIGHLY COLLECTABLE 1675 PCG???

...in your listings you state: "You can count on us to be factual..."

...you NEED to DISCLOSE the dial issue in your listing for the benefit of your prospective buyers and be in compliance with your own statement.

...based upon the revised listing and pic of the 1560 bridge, the movement is no longer an issue.

[316lad]

Good call everyone.
This is what it's all about.
Any fool can spot a chinese shite hawk but it's ebay auctions like this that are the truly misleading and damn right out of order.

Again, well done all.

I luuurve this forum.

[jeff hess]

if your note springers note above he is still harping on the movement is original as the main issue.... the movement is genuine....(also the dial is genuine and the band is genuine). And if you look above , the consensus was that the problem was that we said that the genuine band and dial were "original" to the watch...not that they were not genuine. Which they are. So we took out the offending word "original". TO recap.. the movement, in spit of Springers note, is INDEED original to the case. And the dial and band are genuine Rolex that were probably upgraded by Rolex. We have followed the orders... as this thread has dictated.

[springer]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

if your note springers note above he is still harping on the movement is original as the main issue.... the movement is genuine....(also the dial is genuine and the band is genuine). And if you look above , the consensus was that the problem was that we said that the genuine band and dial were "original" to the watch...not that they were not genuine. Which they are. So we took out the offending word "original". TO recap.. the movement, in spit of Springers note, is INDEED original to the case. And the dial and band are genuine Rolex that were probably upgraded by Rolex. We have followed the orders... as this thread has dictated.

Jeff, I stand corrected on my previous post regarding the movement. What I meant was the new listing did not mention the incorrect movement, if it is incorrect. My post #16 was regarding the re-listing of the GMT on ebay without disclosing the discrepancies in the dial, hands, band etc. which was noted by several TRF members here in this thread. As you will also note, I did not initiate the concerns regarding the movement in this thread, but posted regarding how the wording in the ebay listing was corrected when the auction was re-listed. The correct movement I believe is referred to as the 1565, which is a 1560 movement with a date wheel. It is rather confusing to those that do not understand the differences between the 1560, 1565, 1570 an 1575. When someone looks up the correct movement for 1675 GMT's, most reference materials list the 1675 and 1565 which could add to confusion for those unfamiliar with Rolex movements.

As far as the remainder of the listing goes, I concur with Tudorman and the other posts in this thread that the replacement parts should be noted in your auction as they are not original and therefore greatly diminish the value of the watch. While as a seller, it is clear that you want to realize the highest selling price possible, the realized price should clearly be based on what you are selling - not what you perceive you are selling. Selling a watch as original, that contains many replacement parts, is not something anyone likes to see on ebay. We've discussed this many times here with you, and it seems clear that you have a propensity for doing it your way, therefore the posts are made here for those novice collectors that read your listings as gospel. There are also many buyers on ebay that are not privy to the posts here in the watchout section therefore discrepancies in your listings are passed on to the watch experts on ebay. In the end, it is ebay who has the final word on any of their auction listings.

[mrbill2mrbill2]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

--------

Well this is my last post on this...but you may be right Mr. Myterious Springer. Perhaps if we knew who you were we would tear yours apart. And yes, my wifes auction are scrutinized on here with you being the the most prolific. Your agenda is clear. percentage wise, Katrinas auctions are the highest rated for accuracy. And on the subject watch, all (even those on this forum) agreed it was mostly the terminology that was the problem. The watch is 100 percent Rolex. All agreed. The posters saying vintage original was the only problem.
You are as usual, My Mysterious man Soringer, making a mountain out of a molehill.

I know have little else to do, but this my last post on the subject.

Cheers!

Jeff

Springer offers to review your descriptions and you continue to belittle him. All I can say is you are a real piece of work. You have shown your true side. I would never even consider purchasing anything from you, let alone a Rolex.

Just my opinion.

With all the missplellings in your posts it is good you are not doing the listings!

[jeff hess]

Mr. Bill,

Forgive the misspellings. I was typing on my Ipad and it was a bit daunting.

I beg your forgiveness as well as to your thoughts that I was "Belittling" Mr. Springer.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but Mr. Springer seems to be the one that is doing the belittleing if you read the entire thread. And he was wrong as his he has noted. I commend him for his stepping up and being honest as to his mistake.

And as noted (again, if you follow the thread) the original complaints on the thread were the word "original" (now relisted to take away the offending word) and the movement not being original (now disproven). I also stepped up and directed my wife Katrina (no easy thing there!) to stop the auction and take our the offending word.

Cheers!

Jeff

[toph]

Jeff i hate to go on about this as all the points have been made very well by John and Stan.. but i must,
Saying 'the original complaints on the thread were.. the movement not being original (now disproven)'.
You have not disproved us at all, you have merely corrected a factual error in your original listing as due dilligence had not been done. ( notice correct use of word original) which was why i questioned it in the first place.

[jeff hess]

Hi Toph,

Ok..Please reread the thread

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I wish you guys the best.

The watch is all genuine. The listing does NOT say "original" anymore.

End of story.

Jeff

[toph]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

Hi Toph,

Ok..Please reread the thread

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I wish you guys the best.

The watch is all genuine. The listing does NOT say "original" anymore.

End of story.

Jeff

I wish you all the best too, i mean you no harm at all. Maybe your reputation proceeds you and people like us expect too much. I have no personal agenda but i feel by pointing out the mistakes we are doing you a service rather than a disservice. As you said the listing was wrong in parts and now its right.

[robertneville]

Originally Posted by toph

I wish you all the best too, i mean you no harm at all. Maybe your reputation proceeds you and people like us expect too much. I have no personal agenda but i feel by pointing out the mistakes we are doing you a service rather than a disservice. As you said the listing was wrong in parts and now its right.

well said Toph!