Proactive Measures .. Modders, Collectors, Scammers

[POTR]

Ah yes... good to see you Ryy... quit hiding so much, I miss seeing you around... that being said... allow me to slap you around a bit...

The solution you pose is interesting, but still suffers from many of the same problems as the current situation. It may provide a veneer of legitimacy, but at best it is simply a portfolio for the modder.

With your solution, the modder (good or bad) has control of the watch, the money and the production and publication of "the evidence." With this, who can be assured that the "before" pics aren't "after the modder scratched the hell out of it trying to open it" or "after the modder dropped the movement" pics?

Photography skills vary... and before and after photos from separate sources would also be problematic... especially for more meek owners that don't wish to open up their watches (which is why they are using modders in the first place).

I do think that modders should be backing up their offerings with a demonstrable portfolio, however, the internet being what it is, and human nature being what it is, the ease of availability of "content" makes the probability of a forged portfolio high.

Being fair, this solution doesn't stop dishonest clients from misrepresenting "before-before" and "after-after" pictures of their watches either.

Any hope of mutually satisfactory mediation is near nil, as the modder will already have had the watch and the money...

Short of a "full service" two-way escrow service, run by people that can fairly critique the product... there really isn't a way to be entirely fair.

Since no one would want to sit in that unenviable position... We are left with modder's posting pics of what is hopefully their work, clients hopefully being completely open in complaining if they get back something sub-par, the community as a whole half heartedly debating the merits of both sides of the argument, and most of the noobs won't read it, and some of the regular old pro members will miss it, and someone will still get suckered and come back complaining, completing the circle and ripping open the old wound ...

[ryyannon]

I never thought it would happen, but I've finally found someone who is even more pessimistic and with an even dimmer view of human nature than my own!

You must be more fun than the proverbial barrel of rabid monkeys, POTR

Now, let's get real: first of all, no one slaps me around - even metaphorically - except for my pet pigeon, Poopzilla and he would never do such a thing anyway, unless seriously provoked. (It's generally unknown, but pigeons can give incredibly strong 'karate-chops' using the edge of a wing. It can scare the hell out of someone who is unaware of this capacity, and if the bird connects well, it can also hurt.)

For the rest, I still maintain that a system of posting dated before and after thumbs would work - most of the time. On the condition of using the same lighting, position and presentation for all watches. Of course, if a modder wanted to manipulate the system, he could - but for how many times? Seeing the same horror story more than twice would totally disqualify a modder in most people's eyes.

But the bottom line is that nothing in life is one-hundred percent sure: as others have already pointed out, there's always a small margin of error, and even the best people occasionally have a bad day. Is there even a trusted collector here who hasn't occasionally sent out bad product?

The end of the bottom line is that I don't really have a dog in this fight: I've never sent a piece out for modding, and probably never will. If I wanted it to look absolutely like the real thing, I'd buy the real thing. As for repairs, I know who I'd chose and who I'd avoid: you can't spend the time you should on this forum without learning that.

I do feel that it would be good to have some sort of objective, visible way of evaluating the skills of modders/smiths, and the pics were my initial suggestion. Beyond that - and even using that system - I tend to agree with you that there will be blood.

And after sleeping on it, I think you're probably right, but with some reservations: the good people would use it well, and the incompetent, dishonest guys would abuse it.

But hell, if we didn't have each other to complain about - legitimately or not - a large part of the interest of this forum would be lost for some people, no?

[TeeJay]

I think that a documentation of the mod/repair process is certainly more feasable than the idea of an escrow service.

The only reason I say that, is because with the escrow service, there will be two opinions about the watch. The owner, and, the observer. I've seen comments on TZ where someone criticized a gen Rolex because the hands weren't perfectly lining up with the dial markings. Some people have unreasonably high expectations of things. I've seen a photo of a gen PAM, where the quality of the lume (in terms of consistency) was appalling. Again, a gen product, falling way under what some would consider acceptable. The level of work provided by those like Ziggy surpasses that level. His lume work is better than gen. The problem that creates, is that having seen such work before, that is all they will accept. Now, say Mr A sends his watch to Ziggy for a relume. Mr B checks the watch on completion, and thinks that the work has been carried out to a satisfactory standard. Mr A could still disagree (unlikely, but possible) I think the only way an escrow service could work, is if the client provides a specific 'check list' of what they want done, and how they want the results to appear. That would at least provide the observer with something to specifically look for. But, that's hellishly time consuming.

A documentation of the process would be quicker and easier. Yes, this is the internet, and the ability to steal material to pass off as one's own exists, but, sometimes, things have to be taken on faith. The title of the thread includes 'collectors and scammers', so I will use them to illustrate the point. When people look at a collector's site, they take it on faith (because of the reputation of the collector) that the watches on display are the ones which will be sent. There have been instances though, where collectors have received new stock of X watch, which has a minor variation to the shown illustration, and, when people received them, they complained (rightly so) that the watch received, was not the same as the watch advertized. Were the collectors a) trashed and barred for it? Or b ) where they given the benefit of the doubt? That's right, Option B. They were given the benefit of the doubt.

If collectors are to be given the benefit of the doubt about the 'sales catalogues' they provide, (even when there have been proven cases of alternate stock, or un-serviced watches sent out) then the same benefit of the doubt has to be given to a modder's 'documentation portfolio'. It has to be an even playing field for all who provide services and product to this community. It is unfair to say that X's work is above question, and doesn't need to prove anything to anyone, but Y's work is nothing short of incompetant, and that they have to prove everything they do. There have recently been several topics requesting modding services other than Ziggy, and those requests were mostly shot down by the peanut gallery, despite the fact that Ziggy's workload is reported as so much, that he is forced to turn away work. That proves that there is a need, no, a demand, for other watchsmiths/modders to step up and offer services to people. But. Given the air of negativity and suspicion which such people are treated with, is it any wonder there are so few stepping forward? Why should people offer services to others, knowing that they face such schepticism? Demands for 'proof of work', for example, will do nothing to encourage people, and more to drive them away/remain silent.

[Watchmeister]

IMHO, other than improving the flow of information so that problems are more quickly revealed there is not much else one can do. Modding is very complex and often requires more skill than many full-time watch smiths have. If you think about it you have movements which are often more fickle than standard branded movements, many aesthetic parts (dials, hands, etc.) that are also made of inferior materials or assembled in inferior ways to the gen. And the range of services people are asking for are far broader. Modding requires a certain level of base skills, development of knowledge on our fickle reps and quite often a high level of artistry. Someone can do wonderful things with a vintage Rolex but have a horrible result with PAM's. The best defense the forum has is early customers who display their results here (both good and bad). And then you double the complexity of evaluation as who knows what was going on with the watch before it was shipped. Finally, at 20-30x I can make just about anything look awful. And I would be remiss if I didn't add how often absolute crap work is displayed and people still rally to the modders defense. So what is the answer?

If you are using a new or lesser known person please post the results. Only with multiple reviews can one get a sense of whether to trust a modder. If you see newer folks diversifying into services for which they have no competency tell folks that as well. And in spite of the fact that Ziggy and perhaps one other person tends to always get it right if you get a watch from them and you love it please post it as well. It helps people evaluate their results from other people.

On the other issue of collectors selling already modded watches it should be easier. The collector should have a pic of the modded watch in their offering and you can compare what you got with what was advertised. All other standard collector criteria should apply.

[HauteHippie]

IMHO, other than improving the flow of information so that problems are more quickly revealed there is not much else one can do.

Bingo. W's bottom line there really captures my only thought on the matter... A simple concerted effort ought to be made to flush out problematic dealings with modders. The positive reviews come naturally and regularly, but one man's trash can often be another's treasure. So it is the serious** problems that need to be brought to light more expeditiously which can most benefit the community as a whole. Many examples come to mind, perhaps the most egregious being the revelation that RBJ's quarantining of members' watches for well over a year only to return them (for those that WERE returned) with major problems was not an isolated incident but in fact quite widespread across the community. Things like this can and should be prevented; they never should have gotten that far. And I believe most problems can be avoided by simply utilizing what's already available to everyone - so long as we speak up and make it available. At that point it's up to the individual looking for mod work to do his own due diligence. No amount of experience sharing or certification can ever protect one against his own carelessness. And we shouldn't strive to provide that sort of protection anyhow.

** Keeping in mind, as W also mentions, that complications will sometimes arise and mistakes can be made - we're human. So one who strives to provide the highest quality without cutting corners and does everything within reason to resolve unforeseen issues is a simple standard to hold IMO.

[fotoman]

Its a tuff issue - this has been debated, openly and behind closed doors for years.

This is why we, the active members need to make sure that we don't let scammers create propaganda in threads here. And, i don't mean to offend those who work hard on other forums - but the reality is, we have better standards here than on the other "newer" forums. Some of which were started in order to give a place for people who have earned a bad reputation here.

We, as RWG and as one of the senior large/ active forums need to be vigulant. But, were never going to be able to save every newb, they will have to search and the info will be there. We provide alot of support. but no system is perfect. Even good dealers - and good modders sometimes turn bad, it happens.