This seems to be a good example of a vintage A-11 military watch (it's listed as such). It looks correct. It's got pictures of the movement, which seems to be correct. The seller has almost perfect feedback. So no problem right?
It is 100% fake (or at least, a frankenwatch made from old and new parts). And this is for a watch worth, perhaps, $200.
The real problem with watches is that fakes are so difficult to recognize that buyer feedback means much less, since a buyer is unlikely to recognize the fake. And often a seller is unaware he's selling a fake, so deception can't be detected in the description or the title. For the watch above, I think the seller knows what he has, and has very carefully described it to imply that it is an original, while not technically lying (he only claims the CASE is original).
I notice you don't offer support for watches. Are there any plans to expand to that? I operate a similar website (http://www.haberdashboard.com) where I just implemented a watch search, and it is ASTONISHING how difficult paring out the fakes is.
I'm impressed by how much engagement you've built over such a small number of items. Is there a reason you don't seem to have implemented typical search filters like size, price etc? It seems difficult to find anything if I'm just browsing, so I assume I'm missing something as to how people are using the site.
I work with standards as well (structural engineer), and I am 100% in favor of them being freely available.
Codes and standards are EXTREMELY expensive. A typical code will cost in the 200-400 dollar range, and will be updated every 2-3 years (requiring repurchase). And a practitioner can easily use 10-20 different codes.
Because a building HAS to be built to code, the codes end up being responsible for how billions of construction dollars are spent. Keeping this information restricted is extremely irresponsible, and makes it easier for code writing to be hijacked by special interests. (Possibly apocryphal story relayed to be by my boss: Most model plumbing codes don't allow PVC pipe to be used to for interior water distribution. This has little to do with the effectiveness of PVC pipe, but was lobbied for by plumbers unions, as PVC can be installed without the aid of a plumber.)
Not to mention the fact that once these standards become incorporated into a state building code they carry the force of law, and legal precedent is fairly strongly in favor of "the law can't be copyrighted"
There's many ways to still make money without charging the egregious price the codes currently cost.
-Give an electronic version away for free, but charge for a paper copy.
-Give the standard away for free, but charge for a design manual that makes it easier to use. This is essentially what the AISC does - the steel code is available for free, they simply charge for a design manual that gives standard steel member and connections properties/capacities. PCI does this as well.
-Give the standard away for free, but charge for the code commentary. This is what PCA does.
In fact, court rulings have upheld that once a standard becomes a law, the SDOs DO forfeit their copyright. "The law can't be copyrighted" has legal precedent dating back to the 1800's, and was most recently upheld (specifically with respect to building codes) in the vase of Veeck vs. SBCCI:
That's why Malamud hasn't been sued by the ICC, even though he makes their primary publications (The International Building Code, which every state uses some flavor of) freely available.
The degree of responsibility is vastly different. Engineers are licensed, and can (and often are) sued for professional negligence. Failing to do your job adequately means you'll be stripped of your license and prevented from practicing engineering.
This seems to be a good example of a vintage A-11 military watch (it's listed as such). It looks correct. It's got pictures of the movement, which seems to be correct. The seller has almost perfect feedback. So no problem right?
It is 100% fake (or at least, a frankenwatch made from old and new parts). And this is for a watch worth, perhaps, $200.
The real problem with watches is that fakes are so difficult to recognize that buyer feedback means much less, since a buyer is unlikely to recognize the fake. And often a seller is unaware he's selling a fake, so deception can't be detected in the description or the title. For the watch above, I think the seller knows what he has, and has very carefully described it to imply that it is an original, while not technically lying (he only claims the CASE is original).
It's a very, very difficult problem to solve.