Joepny brings to light a critical discussion surrounding the authenticity of a vintage Rolex Daytona ref. 6239, previously sold by prominent auction houses. His post meticulously details how a "Solo" dial variant of the 6239, initially sold for a modest sum, reappeared years later with a significantly altered dial and a much higher valuation. This case study serves as a stark reminder for collectors about due diligence in the vintage watch market.
Moderator, please let me know if anything is out of bounds and I will fix it. I think this is important news to share on PPro.
Catching up on the weekend news (freezing temperatures has a way of ensuring you stay in bed all weekend long and ignore almost everything) and thanks to former PuristS SJX's IG feed, a tantalizing vintage Rolex story developed over the weekend that I think all of us can learn from. SJX writes an article taken from the IG feed of Perezcope.
Here are the findings:
(1) Perezcope looked at the picture of a Rolex Daytona ref 6239 sold by Phillips auction with Bacs & Russo in Dec 2015 in Hong Kong. Lot # 226. Case number 1079777. Result $750,000 HKD (You can go to the Phillips website and see it for yourself. Here is the accompanying text from Phillips with Bacs & Russo:
"The present watch is better known as the "definitive" version of the
reference 6239. It has an extraordinary dial that embodies its
distinctive mark of originality. Its most important and eye catching
feature is the absence of the Cosmograph writing under the Rolex
signature. This dial is the rarest variant of this reference 6239 and is
called "Solo"."
(2) Then Perezcope searches for the same case number 1079777 and finds that it was previously sold by Antiquorum in Dec 2011 in New York. Lot #225. Result $27,500 USD (estimated $213,606 HKD at the time). The picture provided by Antiquorum shows the Daytona with the word "Cosmograph" on it. Perezscope matches spots on the 3 registers that are exactly in the same place between the photos provided by Antiqourum and Phillips. So it's very likely the same watch since the case number has not changed and we have the curious case that between Dec 2011 and Dec 2015, the word "Cosmograph" was erased from the dial.
So by removing a word and waiting for the red hot vintage Rolex market, this watch traded hands again for an additional $536,400 HKD in 4 years!!!
(3) The unsurprising punch to the gut: Perezcope shows an article written on Hodinkee by Ben Clymer in June 2016 where he uses the same picture from Phillips auction house and Clymer writes in the article that he believes the "Solo" dials are original to ref 6239 and he uses a doctored watch picture to prove his point. How ironic.
So now thanks to Perezcope, what has happened:
(1) Phillips auction house with Bacs & Russo has written on IG that they think the authenticity of the watch they sold is wrong and they will offer a refund to the Dec 2015 buyer. They write that they sold the watch in good faith. But no mention is made why they did not have someone do a simple check on the case number back in 2015 when the watch was consigned and before it was sold. It would have uncovered the Antiquorum 2011 listing. Some people on IG are giving Phillips kudos for offering the refund and admitting a mistake. Pfft, that's the least they can do to contain the damage to their reputation.
If you look at the Phillips website, their watch department has about 17 people include Aurel Bacs and I am going to take a wild guess that there are a few lowly paid interns in that department who are not named. (Or available from the pool of interns at Phillips corporate.) Their auctions have somewhere around 200 lots. Doing a Google search on 200-300 lots can be easily accomplished in under 1 day. They should unequivocally have someone on the payroll whose primary responsibility is to check on the internet/public history of watches consigned to them as a simple first step. I would do internet searches for them if they would waive the 25% fee on a winning lot...wink wink.
(2) Ben Clymer has stated that he had no idea the watch was doctored when he wrote the article in June 2016 and was simply using a picture available to him. He will make an update to his article. I take the issue with Clymer/Hodinkee as with Phillips -- Hodinkee most likely have well over a dozen people there and they're growing. They need to establish a internal audit role to vet their articles when they use content from their silent partners like Phillips and the other auction houses. It's just a laughable case of willingly letting themselves be led by an auction house whose interest is to sell and not be 100% correct. They want to be regarded as "the preeminent resource" for watch lovers/collectors and yet they make very little effort to vet themselves. Garbage in, garbage out.
Your thoughts?
(Edit: misspelled Perezcope. Corrected.)
