Franken Ploprof with mix of real and fake parts

[Nalu]

We've been talking about this one on the Ploprof re-issue thread, but the seller is being such a so-and-so that I've decided to rat him out as widely as I can. It's very concerning to me that we're starting to see Ploprofs with a mix of real and fake parts. This means either some unscrupulous person knows that the fakes are getting famous and is trying to camouflage them or Omega are servicing fakes and replacing fake parts with genuine ones I should note that I have circumstantial evidence that the fake Ploprofs have real cal. 1002s inside and the recent appearance of frankens adds to the body of evidence.

First, the listing. This one was previously listed on Chrono24 and didn't sell. Now it's on ePrey and currently at 2000 Euros. Someone is going to have a sore bum!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...0%3D%26fvi%3D1

The watch is a franken of real and fake parts. The case is fake and the dial is fake, the hands and bezel are genuine. Let me go over the telltale signs:

Dial
1. Black = no such dial made, only dark blue (early dials) and blue (later dials).
2. The inner 5 minute/hour track - and I apologise to my DeskDivers mates because I remember observing this a while ago and forgot to include it previously so it's not in the DD article - the markers are too thick relative to the lumed, more peripheral hour track.
3. The Omega symbol isn't 'right'. It's hard to see, but if you compare closely, the real Omega symbol has thick parts (the sides of the hoop) and thin parts (the bottom just above the 'feet') - it's not all one thickness like on the fake dials.
4. The other fonts are very, very close, but just not right. Look at the "A" in Professional: flat-topped on the real dials, pointy on the fake.
5. I suspect the dial lume (most likely luminova) is easily distinguishable from the late 60s Type 1 tritium dials, which have aged considerably and will have a different decay pattern for age and content reasons. I haven't seen a fake dial lume shot, so this is a theory at this point.

Genuine early (Type 1) Ploprof dials







Fake Type 1 Dial from this auction:



Case

1. The case has sharp top side edges on the crown and button sides of the watch. The junction between the top and sides in this region of the case should be beveled.
2. The crown recess is a C-front. "All fakes have C-fronts, not all C-fronts are fakes" - you may have to read the DD article to get this.
3. The valleys between the ridges on the back demonstrate the typical rough/cast appearance of the key areas of the fake cases.

Genuine Ploprof back



Genuine case crown recess:



Genuine case button side view:



The fake case views:







Here is my first message to the seller:

"Hello, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the dial and case on this watch are not genuine. For more information, see the http://www.deskdivers.com article on fake Ploprofs. The hands and bezel are genuine, but the case and dial are definitely not. I encourage you to make note of this in the auction listing or pull the listing completely. Thanks for your time, Colin"

His reply was unhelpful and I won't print it here.

My second message to the seller:

"Repaired by Omega only means the movement is genuine, as everyone saw last year during Omegamania when a fake "stubby" SM300 with a genuine movement sold at auction.
Omega never made a Ploprof with sharp case edges near the crown as on your watch - they are radiused or beveled. They never made a Ploprof with a black dial. They never made a Ploprof with a rough, cast appearance to the lug recesses and in between the ridges on the back. I spotted this watch as a fake when you had it listed on Chrono24.
If you are so sure, then post a photo of the back with the bracelet removed. Post a lume shot too.
Fakes almost invariably surface in and around Germany. I'd be interested in hearing where you bought this watch. Didn't you wonder why a type of dial not seen since the first year of Ploprof production is in such great condition? How a dial supposedly from the 1960s has luminova (and not tritium, as it should have) on it?
I've owned six Ploprofs of different vintages and have studied photos of dozens of real and fake Ploprofs. The case and dial on this watch are fake. Again, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Colin"

His second response was equally unhelpful and won't be repeated.

I have sent a third message again asking him to look at the DD articles, telling him I'm trying to help him avoid a disaster and asking him to post photos of his returned spare parts (which I'll bet are a combination of real movement parts and the fake hands and bezel which came on this watch).

He replied that he would send me a photo of the spare parts. Today he messaged me again: no photo, only insisting that the watch is real because the dealer said so at the time it was serviced

Feel free to message this seller. We have a week to get him to see the light and keep a fellow WIS from getting ripped off!

[no_self_control]

you should be raising this issue with eBay. they have the power to pull this listing. if you do, then it would be worth mentioning the true value of this watch compared to a real omega.

sadly, eBay very much works on the basis of buyer beware. there are many things that eBay could do to clean up their act, such as posting all questions on an item not just those the seller wants the buyers to see. that would dramatically reduce these type of sales.

[mrsnak]

The problem is that eBay chooses to set very limited categories for reporting auction problems. EBay US will not allow you to explain a problem, only choose from a few limited categories. There is a counterfeit option, but nothing to explain a misrepresented franken.
I have noticed that eBay Australia and UK allow you to add a note of further explanation. Have no idea why US doesn't do it.

[Fergie]

I have noticed that eBay Australia and UK allow you to add a note of further explanation. Have no idea why US doesn't do it.

This must be a new thing. When I've felt compelled to report something, I had to choose from a list of categories and then finally type the item number. There was no way of explaining why it was a fake.
I just presumed that eBay had a watch expert on staff who could spot fakes without anyone else offering an explanation.
Now in order for me to eat my breakfast, I must remove my firmly planted tongue from my cheek


p.s. Snak. If you watch your sig for long enough, do they pop out?

[BraniffPages]

It's going for over $5,000 now. Someone is really going to be pissed they got a fake.

I fell for a fake Montblanc on the Bay once. Complained to Paypal, and got my money back. Seller was pissed when I didn't send it back, but I didn't want some other sucker to "buy it."

I worked at Neiman-Marcus in the 90s, and know what real Montblancs look like. I also own quite a few.

[Xaltotun]

Report this!

Someone is going to get ripped off from his/her hard earned cash.

Use this page and item number ( 300228935056 ).

The way the seller responded to member NALU, let me think this is not an honest seller.

Report it!

[no_self_control]

The problem is that eBay chooses to set very limited categories for reporting auction problems. EBay US will not allow you to explain a problem, only choose from a few limited categories. There is a counterfeit option, but nothing to explain a misrepresented franken.
I have noticed that eBay Australia and UK allow you to add a note of further explanation. Have no idea why US doesn't do it.

the way past this is say it is counterfeit and explain the problems with the parts that are counterfeit. you do not have to mention that it has a few genuine parts, after all, the parts that are counterfeit in this case is basically most of what makes the watch what it purports to be, namely case and dial.

but, yes, basically eBay do not want to know and this is how they try to stop you telling them. it is pretty ugly, in my opinion, but i have tried my best to complain and just feel it is a waste of time. worse than that, i feel we are being used by eBay. candidly, eBay has got the reputation it deserves.

[Xaltotun]

I've reported it as a fake. Clearly, the intend (by the seller OR by the previous owner) was to deceive. So I feel the "bootleg" or "fake" denomination is not a stretch.

I advise members to report it (see my previous post in the same thread) so someone does not get robbed of $their 5K to $10K..... I would be pissed off if it was me purchasing this.

[no_self_control]

I've reported it as a fake. Clearly, the intend (by the seller OR by the previous owner) was to deceive. So I feel the "bootleg" or "fake" denomination is not a stretch.

I advise members to report it (see my previous post in the same thread) so someone does not get robbed of $their 5K to $10K..... I would be pissed off if it was me purchasing this.

don't get me wrong. i applaud your action. but i've personally seen too much of the way eBay try to avoid responsibility for the fakes that are sold on their site.

[Nalu]

I have reported it to eBay. After the third non-response from the seller, I made my report.

I posted this here so that if anyone here happened to be bidding that they would be warned. Also, eBay won't pull an auction until some magical number of complaints are made. I was hoping that other folks, like Xaltotun would help out. :thanks