data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2a70a/2a70a2d0d2efe71ee754b70849396089f1ece12c" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c34de/c34deaa718fdc049aca3b36dc86b167442c4740b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc029/fc029d5860c8ed67d19693301d4a1ac15794724c" alt=""
results...
P.s. Sorry, second was the deWitt "Incognito 2008" for 400,000€. Since there is no picture of the watch it is "incognito" indeed. In any case it is a bit astounding that somebody would buy a watch they have not seen, let alone a deWitt. I really would be interested is knowing who buys and their relationship with the brands. Bidding "incognito" has its advantages. If the ties are too close for comfort with the brand (like being the general manager or owner) there should be a law against this. Inflating prices at auctions is a relatively easy and almost cheap means of promotion. Some are doing a great job at this. Off course, I am not pointing fingers... I just wonder after Pierre Kunz's poop the next watch they auction (maybe next year) will do substantially better due to a "mysterious" bider.