The worst eBay listing - ever!

[oldmancoyote]

I debated with myself whether we should cover similar things in the "fugly" or "stupid joke" threads, but eventually decided it has a place of its own.

My entry for first prize is this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/...7c8eb#ht_11676wt_911

I am not sure whether to be amused or angry - particularly once one reads the Q&A section.

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

  

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[Trinkette]

 

[annie1]

Wow...

[saqsay1]

wow! that was very interesting. however, i know nothing about antique watches and virtually nothing about railroads. what I want to know OMC is what your opinion of the item is and all the arguments presented? the seller did have some interesting points and one person defended him.

[ah2bqat]

thanks, saqsay!  I was about to post a similar answer.  I thought the 'history' fascinating.

[SaoriViola]

what a complete douche nozzle.  it was so annoying to read his answers but i kept reading hoping something would give.  douchenozzle!

[SaoriViola]

i know nothing about watches, antique, railroad, or otherwise, but reading his discription hurted my brain.  his explanations made no sense, why would a dainty rich woman's watch be a "railroad standard" watch??

[djm195]

As per T:

[djm195]

[clgwli]

The whole thing left me scratching my head as well.  I simply did not understand what was fact and what was not.

Personally I'd probably be taking that watch to an appraiser who specializes in watches to get the info.  I'd trust it more than a google search on the internet!

[oldmancoyote]

There's two basic problems with the description:

1. As many people have tried to tell this lady (I believe she's a lady - she signs herself "Lois"), wristwatches were not commonly made in the 1850s if at all. Those ladies' "bracelets with watches" that date before the 1920s were much different, and were basically bracelets to which a watch had been fitted. They can be worth a pretty penny because they are not common, but this is not the case here, since the case itself is stylistically from the 1920s and clearly born as a watch case, not as something else , and the bracelet is clearly a replacement for the original; one would not have a plated 10k gold bracelet (that's what the 1/20 10 k means) fitted to a platinum case. The movement also bears all the signs of a cheaply manufactured movement from the 1920s-30s (I can go into the details of why if you like).

2. All this fuff about Railroad watches is a complete farce. First of all, railroad watches were made to keep time accurately in a working environment. They had to have adjustments for position, temperature compensation and possibly spring winding. This watch has none of these. Secondly, they were manufactured in the late 19th century as working instruments for men - which meant large pocket watches cased in plain steel or gunmetal for men, not small ornamental wristwatches in precious metal made for women. As to "Arabic" it is intended as opposed to "Roman" (i.e. 1234... vs. I II III IV...); real Arabic numerals are different (as in ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩), and I very much doubt that employees at the Waltham Watch Co. in the 1850s (or in the 1920s for that matter) knew anything about Arabic script. That "Arabic word" is a scratch.

To this, there is added a general ignorance - or neglect - of basic facts: 57 is a prime number - oh, really? I suppose 19 x 3 is something other than 57, then? Rockefeller built his fortune on oil, not railroads, 35 is not the same as 33, the Trilateral commission is so-called because it has three basic constituencies (USA, Europe, and Japan) and it was founded in 1973, Freemasons did not have exclusive use of triangular symbols - otherwise all the "Yield"/"Give Way" signs on the roads are the signs of a widespread Masonic conspiracy indeed, and I could go on with the non-sequiturs.

The amazing thing is that people bring her (him?) hard evidence, like the fact that the date she attributes through the caliber number is not possible, because that caliber refers to a key-wound movement made by a third party, but she chooses to ignore anything that does not confirm her ideas. The one person that "defended" her only said that the serial number would be stamped only on the movement - which may be the case, but it proves nothing about the rest of the description being correct.

As to the google search - absolutely. Also, I followed the links she gave, and they point to a site from Atlanta, GA selling watches, but have no info on them whatsoever. And even if they had any info, I'd be wary of taking it as having greater import as what presented by recognised authorities and associations like the NAWCC.