Cliff Helander Posts: AND AS THE OWNER OF THIS WATCH, HERE ARE MINE... [Mar 17, 2007 - 04:08 PM] Hi all, I purchased this watch at a recent NAWCC meeting from a well known and respected Southern California dealer. Before purchasing the watch, I had another major Bay Area watch dealer inspect it under a loupe. The watch is absolutely guaranteed genuine original Omega. I wouldn't necessarily go that far... This watch may indeed have all original Omega's parts, but still not be as the watch left the factory. We see this all the time, when people buy a vintage watch, have it restored with Omega parts, but the parts that are replaced are not NOS vintage parts of the same type, style or age as the original parts they replace. But lets take a gander at the picture of the case back of the watch in question... Let's consider the inscription: 40 microns (meaning gold plating to 40 microns)... On a watch with no gold plating on the case. Omega marks casebacks of watches which are gold plated... Here, for comparison is a case back of a Mark II 145.034 (Gold plated model): Note the indication of 20 microns (in this instance) including the words Fond Acier Inoxydable as well... It'd be interesting to see a non-cropped photo of the caseback for this Ranchero. There certainly seems to be plenty of space below the inscription on the caseback, but it seems cut off above. I posted this watch for sale two days ago for the first time on the Sales Corner. Within less than 24 hours, the listing had over 300 hits, and I received several offers to sell it. Then I noticed that Bill Sohne had copied my listing, as well as copied my pictures of the watch, and placed them on the Omega Forum asking for comments. We comment in this forum on various watches offered for sale all the time. We can't, by TZ edict, discuss watch listed on that electronic Bidding auction facility who's name we cannot mention. But watches listed elsewhere, as long as they are not linked to, are permitted. We even scrutinize watches being offered for sale by TimeZone's parent company Antiquorum:

There are a number of incorrect or at least questionable descriptions...

So expecting any different treatment is not an especially realistic expectation. Which, as any frequenter of this website knows, is like throwing meat to the sharks. Thus seller's should be careful not to dangle their family jewels over the Piranha tank, one would think... I noticed several hours later that my SC listing had been deleted. Possibly because the listing was in violation of TZ Guidelines [more later]... I think it is highly inappropriate, if not unethical, for a TZ Moderator to delete a SC listing and then copy verbatim, with pictures, the listing on a brand forum page and open the sales listing for criticism. That's a very strong accusation, Cliff. Care to back this assertion with proof that Bill did all of this as you claim? It would seem that you are accusing Bill Sohne of doing something with some sort of authority he does not have. It would seem that you haven't bothered to look in the masthead of the forum where the name of the moderator [note that's singular not plural] is listed. Further, that moderator's name is not Bill Sohne. In fact, Bill has not been a moderator here in the TZOF for well over a year:

>>>> Special Report <<<< Change to TZOF... [Jan 13, 2006 - 06:42 AM]

I mean, I can see how you possibly missed Bill's announcement since it was made over 14 months ago. However, before you start flinging around accusations, you might wish to check your facts. The masthead is a pretty strong and easy to find indication that Bill is not and has not been in a position to take the actions you claim he has made. It would be proper and polite for you to admit and apologize for your mistake. The watch in question is stainless steel. The case back, however, indicates it had a 40 micron plating at one time. What happened to this plating? If Mr. Sohne or anyone else wished to have it plated, that is a relatively inexpensive and straightforward proposition. However, it's not original as it left the factory as you seem to have claimed in your comments which I quoted verbatim above [and now below]: Cliff Helander Posts: AND AS THE OWNER OF THIS WATCH, HERE ARE MINE... [Mar 17, 2007 - 04:08 PM] [snip] “The watch is absolutely guaranteed genuine original Omega.” Either a] the watch's plating has been removed [making it not original] or b] the caseback has been swapped [which would also make it not original] or c] your statement: "absolutely guaranteed genuine original Omega" is incorrect or d] some combination of a, b, c, etc. above. It's like the old Dire Straits song "Industrial Disease": “Two men claim they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong!” Just because a particular watch has all the original parts it came with, doesn't mean it's in the state it left the factory. As he noted, the plated version has an estimated value of $5k to $6500 in the Antiquorum listing. That's considerably more than my $1795 sale price on this piece. However, your sale price isn't isn't necessarily relevant. As question originally posed was not "is this a good deal?" but rather "Would you buy this Ranchero with your $$$$ ? Why or Why not ?" - Bill Sohne  -  Mar 16, 2007 - 11:59 AM (606 clicks). Regarding the "PK" (rather than "CK") 2900 reference listing on the caseback, let me say this.Manufacturers often use mismarked casebacks in the original assembly of a watch. I have personally owned three Rolex reference 5513 Submariners which came with factory marked 5512 casebacks. Ok, we let you say that. However... Last time I checked Omega is not Rolex, and also Rolex is not Omega. Omega, for instance marks replacement casebacks for Speedmasters with an additional 0 directly after the decimal point in the case reference numbers. Hence a watch which originally sported a 145.022-xx caseback would have a replacement caseback that would read: 145.0022-xx etc. Irregardless, there is strong reason to doubt this occurred with this watch's production. A much more likely explanation was that the original 40 micron finish of the case was somehow scratched, marred or worn to an extent where someone decided to remove it entirely off the case turning it into a stainless steel watch with a 40 micron caseback. To paraphrase Occam's razor, the simplest explanation tends to be the most likely one. I have also owned about a dozen Rolex with one case reference striked out on the inner caseback, with the correct case reference restamped. However, I don't see any strike thru marks on this caseback. So that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance. I also have owned other Omega which were marked "Plaque" on the inner caseback of an all stainless steel case, This is just another one then. so the marking on this caseback is not something I haven't seen before. I've seen a lot of watches, Omega and other brands, stripped of their original gold (and PVD for that matter) plating/coating. I'd never call such a watch "ALL ORIGINAL" by any stretch of the imagination. For it would be exceedingly unethical [some would flatly say lying]. Bill Sohne knows quite a bit about Omega, I dare say Bill knows as much, if not more, about Omega's as anyone who frequents the various Omega on-line fauna and flora, myself and all present company included. but I have found him to be wrong before (regarding the dating of a watch). I wouldn't know personally, as I doubt I was privy to the conversation you elude to... There is a certain well-known inherent uncertainty with Omega Serial Number tables. Even Omega's "official" tables have flaws and exceptions. Chances are any date offered was offered as a ,,that looks to be a c.1957-1959 piece,, with a margin of error which isn't [or wasn't] taken into account. While no one's perfect (Nadia Comñeci not withstanding). I wouldn't be surprised if any discrepancy there may have been within that conversation had a reasonable explanation. And as much as he may enjoy posting a target for open criticism and potshots, I believe his actions are inappropriate and unethical. So is representing an item as something it is not. Stating that an item is "absolutely guaranteed genuine original Omega", when either the plating of the watch [most likely] or the caseback [far far less likely] is incorrect is not ethical nor in the spirit of full disclosure. Item number 7 of the Sales Corner guidelines state: “No replica or counterfeit watches or parts, or watches on which serial numbers have been altered/removed. No watches that have been altered to look like a brand or model they are not. No goods bearing unauthorized trademarks.” Bill Sohne is not a moderator of TZOF nor, unless I am grossly misinformed, ... nor is Bill a moderator of any sort here at TZ. Thus Bill could not have performed the acts you have accused him of. At this point you should do the right thing and withdraw your accusations and apologize for having made them. As for why your listing was pulled... I do not know the specific details of why it was pulled. However, it would seem that your listing [if it was cut and pasted as you state it was] failed to disclose the high probability of the finish being stripped off the watch or the [lesser] possibility that the caseback had been swapped or at the very least was mismatched, is contrary to the spirit if not the letter of guideline number seven, cut and pasted above for your convenience. Instead you stated [and claimed]: “ALL ORIGINAL OMEGA RANCHERO” which is at the very least misleading; as I and others have detailed throughout this thread. It would seem that regardless of how that posting came to the attention of the actual moderator who took action, your listing was deemed inappropriate and not within established guidelines for posts within the Sales Corner and yanked or else it would still be up there. But it was not Bill who pulled your post from the Sales Corner.