... I must say your comment took me to a complete surprise, as you begin in a very polite way your sentence, but then the text turns a bit aggresive, if you let me express what I felt when reading you.
I have stated here, that I´m rather new in watch collecting, and I´m no expert in timepieces, but have a long (more than 30 years) experience in collecting other type of antique objects, an area in which I´m considered an expert, and well known in my collecting comunity, and I´m required my opinion in many cases.
I always take great care in my answers, whenever I can´t view a piece in my hands, and my opinion is required by letter or mail, and only get some photographs.
I´m specially cauteous, to put my opinions in writing, when I suspect a piece to be redone, restored or -worst- a fake. Specially when I suspect, but can´t confirm, as I need to view in hand to do so.
After so many years, I know well collectors, and specially new comer collectors, and they (me included) have deposited lots of illusions and enjoyment in a piece, to destroy everything with some words, specially when it is difficult to emit an opinion withour examining the piece on your own hands, and you only have a set of photographs.
In this case, I declare once again, I´m not a watch expert.
But, I have faith in the two different persons who sold me the watch.
The 1016 gloss dial, I can assure you is not redone, nor a fake. I have seen several dials of this type, and can be very sure. I´m sure you would change your mind if you had the watch in your hands.
The honeycomb, I was assured original, but I confess this is the first time I see it on the flesh.
May be you have some firm evidence to declare it is redone or fake.
It is well known that Explorer references previous to the 1016, sometimes were provided with honeycomb dials, which are considered rare today.
The reference 6610, as per my readings, was the last reference to be offered with a honeycomb dial.
Now, to write a sentence with such a firm declaration as yours, just by viewing a set of photographs, and without explaining the points that takes you to affirm your conclussions, I view them as unfair.
I do not doubt about your personal knowledge about watches, as I don´t know your identity nor credentials, and I´m not entitled to do so, but I feel you should at least give an explanation backing your opinion when writing such, and may be there are more "diplomatic" ways to express an opinion in a site like Purists.
I don´t feel offended in anyway, but I just wished to express my feelings here. It is just my own opinion, with same weight as yours.
Very cordially, Abel.
This message has been edited by Subexplorer on 2012-03-13 06:07:31