WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I bought the below watch from elady and it was delivered last week after spending a couple of weeks in UK customs.

https://mall.elady.com/bf315545.html

When I got it I was happy with the watch and took some photos of it and uploaded a couple of them elsewhere on this site. It was only by looking at these photos I noticed significant damage to the bezel next to the lower bezel.



Now have a look at the photo shown on the sellers website (photo 4)



I am convinced that the damage was edited out of the photo. I have emailed elady detailing this and they have denied any wrong-doing and even suggested that I caused the damage. They have said I can return the watch for a refund but that would be a whole lot of hassle because I have paid over £200 import fees for the watch. I’m sure there would be a way to claim this back but I don’t imagine it would be easy of fast. Ideally I would like a partial refund to help pay for a repair but the seller isn’t playing ball with that.

Anyway, what do you think? Did the seller photoshop the image?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
40,679 Posts
I could believe it was photoshopped based on the photo, but can’t say conclusively.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Not sure how you might be able to resolve that, especially when they deny any wrongdoing, but the photos have most definitely been deliberately tempered with.

I do professional photography and retouching, and it is most evident that some artefacts have been left behind from this retouching. The uneven tones and edges are obvious when you expand the affected area. It can't be the resolution of the photo as the unaffected areas of the watch have no such issues.

In a word, this is simply deceitful of them. One can only wonder whom they are trying to fleece.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,274 Posts
I was looking at them - they seem to be a pretty big retailer out of Japan (always advertising their watches as POLISHED, for whatever reason, and always having a lower price). Good to know they aren't reliable.
Not sure how you might be able to resolve that, especially when they deny any wrongdoing, but the photos have most definitely been deliberately tempered with.

I do professional photography and retouching, and it is most evident that some artefacts have been left behind from this retouching. The uneven tones and edges are obvious when you expand the affected area. It can't be the resolution of the photo as the unaffected areas of the watch have no such issues.

In a word, this is simply deceitful of them. One can only wonder whom they are trying to fleece.
Isn't there a way to definitely determine whether the picture was edited with Photoshop at all? I recall reading somewhere that Photoshop leaves some kind of stamp encoded somewhere in the picture file.
OP, you might want to ask in some photoshop/editing forums?..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,286 Posts
No PS but typical retail photographing by using large amount of lights. Damage is slightly visible in the first photo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
No PS but typical retail photographing by using large amount of lights. Damage is slightly visible in the first photo.
What about the 4th photo? Zoom in and have a look. Definitely looks fishy to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
damage immediately jumped out to me in the 1st and 2nd photo... 4th doesn't look photoshopped (lots of professional Photoshop experience), just angled in such a way that the light masked the roughness of the surface.


(not trying to sound combative - similar thing happened to me... tough lesson, but any online transaction just requires a *really* close look before committing. if the pics aren't clear, ask for better ones before going ahead with it)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
Not sure how you might be able to resolve that, especially when they deny any wrongdoing, but the photos have most definitely been deliberately tempered with.

I do professional photography and retouching, and it is most evident that some artefacts have been left behind from this retouching. The uneven tones and edges are obvious when you expand the affected area. It can't be the resolution of the photo as the unaffected areas of the watch have no such issues.

In a word, this is simply deceitful of them. One can only wonder whom they are trying to fleece.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
Surprised by your answer, as I also do pro photo work, and don't see the photo shop at all--rather, the pictures are taken at angles, with lighting and focus that perhaps purposely don't accentuate the marks, but they are clearly discernible in a few of the photos as others have noted--and, it is a used watch. While I do think they probably chose pictures that did not highlight the flaws, at the same time, I know that those marks are quite easy to polish out--so, while I agree that this does not put elady in a good light, and I would avoid them as a result, I wouldn't go much further with your complaint, as the marks are indeed there, and they can be removed without too much trouble, time or money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
570 Posts
I'm by no means a professional, (but I do post-process a lot of vacation pictures every year) but it me it just looks like a combination of a bit of overexposure - the damaged area is within an area of blown out highlights, and bad resizing, as evidenced by the pixelation of the numbers on the bezel near the damaged area (and anywhere else in the picture that is somewhat sharp).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,274 Posts
I would not agree that the marks are either 'clearly discernible' or 'easily removable'. Those things in OP's picture look like someone bit off part of the bezel, certainly much lighter. And in the seller's pictures they're only discernible with the benefit of hindsight, i.e. they should've posted the picture that OP posted afterwards, preferably circled in red, - as upstanding sellers on WUS do. Or are you supposed to think that every shadow is potential damage?..

Did they deny that there was any damage at all? Because that would be suspicious. But I'm guessing they just say 'the watch is sold as-is, see pictures'.

Unfortunately this seems to be common. I was asking a small retailer on Chrono about a Laureato model - Watchr.co.uk - and after like a week of looking at pictures I noticed that one 'shadow' might be a deep gouge directly on the bezel (which is like the iconic selling point of the watch). After asking them for more pictures and a clarification of that, they just went dark and didn't respond to anything. So, yeah, major caveat emptor there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,869 Posts
I can see this from the seller's point of view. The marks are visible in all the photos. The scratches look bad in the supersized photos (what, 5 x normal size? 10 x maybe?) but are likely to be hard to see if you are holding the watch. Even the OP only noticed when looking at photos. If you aren't happy then you can return the watch (which they have suggested) and no doubt HMRC will refund your import fees quickly and efficiently (lol!).

I'm not sure there is enough here to be trashing the seller.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
you have wabi , or patina . It wouldn't bother me , at less than 1/2 price of new . If you cannot live with it , return it , I would use it . I looked at the elady website . Low prices on used watches . Like my old boss used to say " I is what it is " .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,960 Posts
Can't tell if it's Photoshop or if the lighting and angle just obscure it. If you look closely, knowing where to look, you can see something is awry, but it doesn't stand out as much as the user photos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,880 Posts
For me it looks not to be a photoshop but instead a picture with a strong artificial light and an angle that disguises the damage making it almost impossible to be noticed. Definitely they tried to hide the damage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,561 Posts
You didn't notice with the naked eye? Only after looking at your own pics you noticed the damage? How "significant" is it. Whereas the sellers pics might have had a diminishing effect based on angle /lighting does your pic do the same on the other end? That should be noticeable to the naked eye.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top