Cliff Helander Posts: 3957 Hi Chuck, perhaps we're talking semantics here, but I totally stand behind [Mar 17, 2007 - 11:24 PM] my statement that the watch is genuine all original Omega. Hi Cliff, by all means feel free to stand behind whatever you choose to stand behind. That's your decision, your choice. I do not agree with your statement and never would have made such a statement in the first place. What that means to me is exactly what it says...that the watch is genuine Omega, It may well be a genuine Omega. [I do not know but I do not dispute that it's an Omega watch.] all original Omega. It is nearly certainly not an all original Omega, as either the case plating [or 40 micron filling/plating] is not in it's original condition state, or it's caseback has been swapped. Nowhere do I say that the watch is "exactly as it came from the factory" almost 50 years ago! You did not say "the watch is "exactly as it came from the factory". However, when you claim the watch is an "ALL ORIGINAL OMEGA RANCHERO" when it's plain it nearly certainly is not all original, I wouldn't be shocked nor surprised when people call you on that point. I have no way of knowing that, and I don't say that. Yet you persist in claiming all original when the plating on the watch is missing or the caseback is mismatched, neither of which you disclose in your posting. In addition you post, what at the very least appears to be, a strategically cropped picture of the caseback. Which I noted in my previous post. However, if a watch is serviced by Omega, and parts are replaced, is the watch NOT "genuine all original Omega" to you? If they are replaced with correct and proper service parts for that particular model of watch perhaps. However, I would not consider a CK2915 with a replacement bezel, dial, hands or caseback, etc. from a 1957 reissue to be genuine all original Omega. As it would be a 50 year old Speedmaster with modern replacement parts which are not all original. I certainly wouldn't misrepresent such a watch as all original. If so, then we have a different interpretation of the words. It certainly seems like you have a notably different interpretation of all original when you call and stand behind a watch stripped of it's gold plating/filling as all original. The removal of the original finish of a watch fundamentally changes it's orginality. When Cartier services a watch, they essentially replace the entire watch, dial, movement, bracelet, etc. The watch in question is not a Cartier, Cliff. The watch in question is not a Rolex either, Cliff. Other brands (Cartier and Rolex among them) have been known to spread out a vintage parts pile, drive a steamroller over them and then pave over what's left into new parking. After that folks have little choice but to have the innards completely replaced. Does that make it NOT "genuine all original Cartier" to you? I certainly would not call it an all original watch, no. And I would trust anyone who promotes such items as all original as far as they could throw me overhand (and I am John Candy sized). The implication that my listing is somehow attempting to "hide" something or provide "less than full disclosure" is ridiculous. “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.” -- Myself [Mar 17, 2007 - 09:54 PM] I don't agree. I didn't see your original posting in the Sales Corner prior to it's being pulled, however, if the text Bill Sohne cut and pasted in his original message is accurate you stated at the top of your text: “ALL ORIGINAL OMEGA RANCHERO” ... when at the very best that statement is debatable, you then proceed to classify the watch as [and again I'm quoting from Bill Sohne's cut and paste of your original text]: “Here's the details: OMEGA (SS "Ranchero")” Which is not what the case back of the watch indicates. Nowhere in the cut and past of the text of your original listing is there any mention of the 40 micron inscription on the caseback nor is there any mention of the case reference which both point to a gold plated or filled case. Thus the implication that my listing is somehow attempting to "hide" something or provide "less than full disclosure" is far from ridiculous. As anyone who has read my watch ads for the last 10 years will know, my descriptions and pictures are among the most complete of anyone listing watches on this or any other forum. It would not seem so in this instance. If I was trying to hide something, why did I include 10 pictures of the watch, including the picture of the caseback? If you were being completely forthcoming about your offering, as you claim, how come the caseback picture you included was cropped, where was the discrepancy between the case's finish and the 40 micron inscription on the case back noted and why isn't it mentioned that the case reference signifies a Gold plated/filled case, not stainless steel, stated in your original listing? I know of no seller, dealer or hobbyist, who includes more information for the buyer than I do on my listings. I know of plenty. Do you? Yes. I do. It is the burden of the seller of an item to comply with the guidelines set forth for accurately listing of their wares at which ever venues they choose to list them in. You claim this watch is "ALL ORIGINAL OMEGA RANCHERO", when the caseback indicates something notably different. You've mentioned at length your theories as to how this watch came to have a Stainless Steel finish instead of the 40 micron finish the caseback says it should have. If you had mentioned these descrepancies with the watch and your theories of how they came to be within your listing in the first place I suspect your listing would likely have been left alone and remained on the Sales Corner. As it was, you did not and everyone following along in this thread knows the rest. Once again, In any instance, it was not Bill Sohne who deleted your post from the Sales Corner. As Bill Sohne is not a moderator here at TZ. Thus Bill could not have performed the acts you have accused him of. Once again, at this point you should do the right thing and withdraw those accusations and apologize for having made them in the first place. As for the rest of your listing. If you feel comfortable totally stand[ing] behind my [your] statement that the watch is genuine all original Omega, that's your decision and prerogative. It says volumes.