Contact
Twitter
Facebook
Youtube
FRANCAIS
Adrien Philippe
Being influenced by the elite has always been a common tendency. But when profit replaces desire, it can become disturbing and even problematic. Counterfeiting should not be the answer. Indeed ethic should be always prioritized in every single business making, especially when the buyer might get cheated.
The house Patek Phillipe has been victim of counterfeiting since its creation. In 1850. we could already find some timepieces signed «Czapack&Patek» or «M.Pateck». Some watches even carried the name «Philippe Pateck».
This reminds us of a story which happened during the 19th century and made a stir.
In july 1885, during the universal exhibition of Antwerp, something upsetting was discovered.
Adrien Philippe and the jury went to inspect the display case of the house Armand Schwob & Frère, and found a suspicious pocket-watch marked with the serial number 26291 and signed Patek & Cie Genève. A scandal broke out!
A long trial generating a lot of articles in newspapers started. The accused brand tried at first to refute its guilt by pretending having bought the timepiece to some man in Paris in May 29th 1885, named Mr Bonneault. But because of a lack of evidence, the trial last for many weeks and months, and none of the parties won the dispute.
PATEK, PHILIPPE & Co, Geneva, N° 4’536
However an unexpected event occurred and turned the situation in favor of the house Patek Philippe & Cie. In december 1886. a watch signed «Pateck, Genève» and carrying the initials «A.S.&F» (initials for Armand Schwob & Frère) was sent for reparation to the house Patek Philippe & Cie.
Another and last evidence was brought in 1890 thanks to the testimony of Georges Roulet, who declared having in the past marked the name «Pateck & Cie, Genève» on some watches, after he received an order from Schwob et Frère. The proofs were finally irrefutable, and the house Armand Schwob & Frères was fined to pay 15000 francs, and not to use the name «Pateck» anymore.
Armand Schwob & Frères had also to publish the court decision on five newspaper chosen by Patek Philippe & Cie and pay Patek Philippe & Cie’s trial fees.
