Watchlords

BigCheez wrote:

Ditchdoc wrote:If possible, let's see if we can send the watch to a certified Geologist for evaluation that is will to verify his evaluation. I will be glad to help pay for this verification.

I'll chip in too. Why would the professor put his name out there? He did this pro bono. We now know the truth, but to legally prove it, you have to pay an expert to put their name on it. No one will put up with the BS this will bring, without being compensated.

Quite right...no professor wants a bunch of folks with enormous watches, misspelled signs, dollar store flip-flops and dirty t-shirts lined up outside screaming "Praise the Lalo you infidel!"

GNM...you started this mission and it turns out you are right...not to sound too geek-ish, but YOU DA MAN!

I chuckled with that one, 1968

watchcollector1968"][quote="BigCheez"][quote="Ditchdoc wrote:

Quite right...no professor wants a bunch of folks with enormous watches, misspelled signs, dollar store flip-flops and dirty t-shirts lined up outside screaming "Praise the Lalo you infidel!"!

OMG..so perfect. I've been laughing for 10 minutes......

A quote from Jim:
I have also shown the Sandstone chunk on-air a few times, and one side was polished (the rest was left natural), and that polished area of the large chunk looked identical to the dial in the watch I displayed... so again, no reason to believe anything except it would be authentic.

Quote from Eyal:

The ONLY thing that is man-made is the process of bonding the sandstone grain to a brick like raw bar, which then gets sent to our dial factory and gets cut to dials and polished.

Anybody else see a disconnect in these two statements?

SloMo wrote:
Anybody else see a disconnect in these two statements?

Yeah. As usual, keeping the BS straight is a bitch. Everyone at their MOST CHARITABLE thought it was sand glued to a dial and painted or dyed. Only numbskulls like Jawbone and Eyal would go to such lengths to pretend it was a sliver of an actual sandstone and the color was natural, etc.

Now we know it's aventurine or goldstone (a man-made glass product) or simply glitter suspended in glass.

They are idiots and they aren't even trying to dispute this.

Dumbasses.

Has someone saved the thread from geeks before skelton starts deleting his dumbass posts.

Count me in, I will chip in to pay for an expert.

I would like to add though, that in my opinion the statements from Lielow and Jumbloat only work to strengthen the validity of the work that slomo and geeknomo did.

iwasbanned wrote:
I would like to add though, that in my opinion the statements from Lielow and Jumbloat only work to strengthen the validity of the work that slomo and geeknomo did.

Buh, buh, buh BINGO! +1

TimeMachine wrote:I know that I was one of those that you were very irritated with for wanting to have hard proof, please understand that it was in no way based on doubts about you. Now that the proof is in:

BRAVO GNM ..... my hat's off to you!

Exposing Yet Another Lie

I 2nd that "Bravo GNM." TM, I didnt sense anything personal among those who prodded GNM during his investigation of the dial. GNM was mildly irritated but finished the job successfully. I think seeking authoritative proof resulted in rock solid evidence of invicta malfeasance in this SS fiasco. Invicta BUSTED. Again.

watchcollector1968 wrote:

GNM...you started this mission and it turns out you are right...not to sound too geek-ish, but YOU DA MAN!

:sdsdsd:

koimaster wrote:

watchcollector1968 wrote:

GNM...you started this mission and it turns out you are right...not to sound too geek-ish, but YOU DA MAN!

:sdsdsd:

Oh dear...did I really say that?
:cszc:

watchcollector1968 wrote:

BigCheez wrote:

Ditchdoc wrote:If possible, let's see if we can send the watch to a certified Geologist for evaluation that is will to verify his evaluation. I will be glad to help pay for this verification.

I'll chip in too. Why would the professor put his name out there? He did this pro bono. We now know the truth, but to legally prove it, you have to pay an expert to put their name on it. No one will put up with the BS this will bring, without being compensated.

Quite right...no professor wants a bunch of folks with enormous watches, misspelled signs, dollar store flip-flops and dirty t-shirts lined up outside screaming "Praise the Lalo you infidel!"

GNM...you started this mission and it turns out you are right...not to sound too geek-ish, but YOU DA MAN!

rotflmao!!!!!!!!!!!! i just lol'd in the office and everybody is like "whats so funny?" that menatl picture was spot on..

Geeknomo,
You are like Hannibal Smith.
"I love it when a plan comes together,"

BigCheez wrote:
...This will bring in a whole bunch of lurkers and some of them will learn very interesting things.

Thanks Rick!

There will be loud conversations with 50in.waist and up (Rick) especially after Jim and Mikey worked so hard and so long at avoiding mentioning WL forum by name on their forum. Morons. Only made geeks more curious.

Quote from Jimmy.

"hough the point was to establish if it was the real substance or not. Now that Eyal has stated that it is, the NEW focus seems to be to determine how it may or may not be processed.....? Why do the rules always change when an answer is given???"

Ok Jim...Listen closely you mental midget! Why do the rules change when the answer is given? Well, just maybe because the answer has changed!! You see, when Uncle Eyal tells people that the dial is a slice of sandstone and how expensive it is and difficult and so on, that is one answer. When called on it then the answer changes...now is sand bonded to some brick of material...big difference there buddy boy. The rules change when Eyal's statements change.

Always amazing how Eyal and Mikey and Jimmy spout off about the big I building watches, their factories and attention to detail...yet when they get exposed for bullshit, then it is just some third party who cobbles watches together for them with parts ordered from some mysterious catalog.

You guys lose customers everyday...your TTV's go over like a lead balloon and you have to shield your members from the truth...maybe time to reevaluate the business practice a bit?

And for the geek's in training, before you go off spouting how members here are just idiot haters...do a search and see some of the names here...well respected and knowledgeable folks who have fine reputations among real forums.

People like Cali Kid, Koimaster, Ditchdoc, bodypeersur, GNM, SloMo and many others...honest folks who are tired of seeing those who dont know any better getting bilked of their hard earned cash based on lies.

Try doing a little digging on your own...think for yourselves.

Just playing the devil's advocate here, but IF a piece of natural sandstone is made into sandstone grains which are then compressed and bonded into a brick that can be sliced into dials; then: The end product is not going to look under a microscope like the original sandstone in it's natural state, AND, it will still be accurate to say that the end product is made of "sandstone".

I can see your argument Time. The problem for me goes a step further. The dials were sold as cut from a sandstone. The costs and expertise required to do this were highlighted as well. A piece of sandstone was brought out by jumbloat showing the polished side and nonpolished. Truth is, they pulverized the sandstone, mixed it with glue, shaped it into bricks, and then cut and polished.

They lied again.

It is another example of them STRETCHING THE TRUTH TO PLASTIC MAN proportions and then overselling something they just did not do. The fanboys can argue all day that it might actually be this or that BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE the way they sold the watches, which is by telling 1/2 of 1/3 truths yet again. This has always been my issue with Invicta going back to the fake bezel screws on the SAS. If they just TOLD THE TRUTH when selling the watches most of these issues would go away.

If they said - Our watches are made with Swiss parts and assembled in China, or something like that and did not ABUSE the word Swiss on the dial people would not have been so pissed for the deception.

If they said these hex screws are DECORATIVE then there would have been no uproar.

and so on and so on.

The problem is that they continue to keep selling like InfoCommercial sales people doing uppers and screaming about features that JUST DONT actually exist exactly as they are being presented....

TimeMachine wrote:Just playing the devil's advocate here, but IF a piece of natural sandstone is made into sandstone grains which are then compressed and bonded into a brick that can be sliced into dials; then: The end product is not going to look under a microscope like the original sandstone in it's natural state, AND, it will still be accurate to say that the end product is made of "sandstone".

Here is the problem with that. The particles that are floating in the matrix would still be 3 dimensional and they are not. This material is glass with particles that have been sliced very thin and added to the glass to achieve the sparkle effect period.

Hey slomo, how strong of a microscope is needed? How much magnification is required to see the structures you described. I have both a SL president sandstone and an Invicta prodiver sandstone I could look at.

Sorry I don't remember the settings and I don't know if the watch crystal will affect results. The good news is we didn't use a playskool microscope.

I don't see how any geek could doubt this dial is fake. Have they forgotten about the MOP "sticker" they were trying to pass as genuine MOP? Or the engraved rotor that turned out to be a plate glued to the rotor? Or have they banned everyone that would remember that far back?

I would love to see their banned list. I'm sure it's much larger than their active member list.

Ditchdoc wrote:I don't see how any geek could doubt this dial is fake. Have they forgotten about the MOP "sticker" they were trying to pass as genuine MOP? Or the engraved rotor that turned out to be a plate glued to the rotor? Or have they banned everyone that would remember that far back?

I would love to see their banned list. I'm sure it's much larger than their active member list.

Don't forget when a BDWF member was accused of putting lint inside his Invicta just to defame Invicta. Or the thumbprints on the CHINESE movement in my Sea Spider.

TVDinner wrote:
If they said - Our watches are made with Swiss parts and assembled in China, or something like that and did not ABUSE the word Swiss on the dial people would not have been so pissed for the deception.

SloMo wrote:Here is the problem with that. The particles that are floating in the matrix would still be 3 dimensional and they are not. This material is glass with particles that have been sliced very thin and added to the glass to achieve the sparkle effect period.

You are 100% correct, if the "floating specs" are something other than "sandstone grains" then there is a problem. Until evidence of that can be provided the answer from Eyal pretty much diffuses the whole issue.

TimeMachine wrote:

SloMo wrote:Here is the problem with that. The particles that are floating in the matrix would still be 3 dimensional and they are not. This material is glass with particles that have been sliced very thin and added to the glass to achieve the sparkle effect period.

You are 100% correct, if the "floating specs" are something other than "sandstone grains" then there is a problem. Until evidence of that can be provided the answer from Eyal pretty much diffuses the whole issue.

Yes, I would agree that it is time that a written report be published.
We have statements that it was natural sandstone, then we have a statement that it is really modified natural "sandstone". I wonder if that is their final answer.