1,910 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 4, 2001
Beaver in Portuguese is castor. I've been trying to find the Portuguese word that could mistakenly be translated into into beaver. even in slang. It must be some creative prose. :)
32 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 18, 2003
Very interesting indeed.
Another quick 'hygiene check': Using the DateyourIWC software, one gets the feedback that the case of this watch was most probably produced (and sold) in 1942, while the movement was produced in ... 1946. Cases for Ur-Portugiesers that were produced in 1942 mostly were equipped with Cal. 74, and not 98, as MF already indicated earlier in this thread. For early Ref. 325 (1942-1944) equipped with Cal. 98, these movements almost invariably came from the first batch carrying numbers 955,001 - 955,600 produced in 1936. The combination of an early case with a Cal.98 from the second batch is quite strange, to say the least...
1,910 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 4, 2001
The seller starts by claiming ignorance, as if this would exculpate him of misrepresenting the watch he is selling. He claims the watch is a Portuguese (Portuguesa) when it clearly is not. It has the case of a lost Ref 325 (originally with cal 74), a cal 98 from a lost PW, and a restored dial from another lost PW. The crown appears, at first glance, to be that of a Ref 325 but closer inspection, negates this. It is clearly a hybrid. Deception is more efficacious when it is half-true. Claiming ignorance is no excuse to misrepresenting the object one is selling. It is, however, very convenient as it seeks to avoid and shift responsibility to the buyer, in a clever by half maner. If one is aware of his own ignorance, one has the responsibility to educate oneself. CAVEAT EMPTOR.
141 Discussions and CommentsMember since Feb. 26, 2012
Thanks for that information. Unfortunately, there are more than a few unscrupulous sellers in the world of watch collecting. I've almost been burned myself a few times over the last 29 years of collecting. I'm still a big believer in buying the seller. If someone is not going to stand behing the watch untiL I have sufficient time to do research if necessary, I'm not buying.
It must be some creative prose. :)
clepsydra
ad fontes...
Kind regards,
Clemens
Another quick 'hygiene check':
Using the DateyourIWC software, one gets the feedback that the case of this watch was most probably produced (and sold) in 1942, while the movement was produced in ... 1946.
Cases for Ur-Portugiesers that were produced in 1942 mostly were equipped with Cal. 74, and not 98, as MF already indicated earlier in this thread.
For early Ref. 325 (1942-1944) equipped with Cal. 98, these movements almost invariably came from the first batch carrying numbers 955,001 - 955,600 produced in 1936.
The combination of an early case with a Cal.98 from the second batch is quite strange, to say the least...
Kovacs Zoltan
Last edited: 14 January, 2013 - 11:46
Thanks for letting us aware of the inconsistencies. Much appreciated.
Claiming ignorance is no excuse to misrepresenting the object one is selling. It is, however, very convenient as it seeks to avoid and shift responsibility to the buyer, in a clever by half maner. If one is aware of his own ignorance, one has the responsibility to educate oneself.
CAVEAT EMPTOR.
clepsydra
ad fontes...
Last edited: 14 January, 2013 - 16:59