Antiques Roadshow guest gushes 'I can't believe that' as value of inherited item unveiled
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info
A guest on Antiques Roadshow was utterly astounded by the hefty valuation given to his Rolex watch by expert Richard Price.
During a rerun of the much-loved BBC show, which aired on Sunday 8th June, Brodie Castle served as the backdrop for a host of valuable discoveries.
The episode showcased a man who presented Richard with a 1960s Rolex GMT-Master that once belonged to his uncle.
Richard, examining the timepiece closely, told the owner: "All Rolex collectors refer to these things by their reference number," and "You know as well as I do because it says so on the dial that it's a GMT-Master."
The owner shared that he had held onto the watch for about 32 years after inheriting it from his uncle, reports the Express.
(Image: BBC)
He guessed that the watch might have been a present to his uncle in the 1960s, leading Richard to investigate its provenance further.
Richard clarified: "It's the reference 1675, which is the classic GMT-Master when you said 60s, I think we could fairly safely say 1960 to 1961, so that all fits in."
Upon closer examination, Richard was delighted to discover the watch was unmodified, pointing out that many watches are often altered during servicing, which can disappoint collectors.
He detailed: "They would've changed the bezel and they would've changed the dial with an upgrade," and then remarked: "You would've had it back thinking, 'Oh, it looks like new'. Collectors hate that, it's absolutely original, spot-on."
The expert was then left a tad disappointed after inspecting the watch further, noting that it sported a jubilee bracelet rather than the original oyster type.
He informed the downcast owner: "It's a Rolex product of course, but it says 'Made in the USA'. So perhaps he specified that he did not want the oyster bracelet, he wanted a jubilee bracelet and they put this one on for him.
"Which sort of detracts from it a little bit, probably detracts from it by a couple of thousand pounds."
(Image: BBC)
The guest's spirits dipped further when Richard valued the watch at what would have been £300 to £350 in the early 60s.
Reacting to the valuation, the guest said ruefully: "Wish he bought more." However, Richard had some uplifting news, announcing that the Rolex is likely worth £12,000 to £15,000.
The guest was left utterly gobsmacked as applause erupted around him. Visibly moved, he uttered: "I can't believe that, can't believe that."
Antiques Roadshow is streaming now on BBC iPlayer.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
June warning to gardeners cutting their hedge this month
Trimming the hedges is a job that comes with risks, warn experts If you're desperate to get the garden in shape this summer, there's one job you may want to hang off setting about just yet. Cutting your hedge this month could land you in legal bother and see you fined or even facing jail time. That's because hedge cutting is covered by environmental law. And if you cut your hedge and damage or destroy a bird's nest in the process you can end up being prosecuted which can lead to an 'unlimited' fine. As the law stands, farm hedgerows cannot legally be cut between the dates of April 1 and August 31. In extreme circumstances, farmers can plead their case to cut hedges if they have a reason but it would require them to be granted a licence allowing them to do this. And while it is actually legal to cut a domestic hedge, gardeners would have to be extra careful there are no birds nest in it before getting the hedge trimmer out. If you do damage or destroy a hedge while cutting, intentionally or unintentionally, you are breaking the law, reports the Express. That's because many birds are still nesting and feeding their young in June. Experts at Husqvana explained: 'Under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it's an offence to intentionally damage or destroy a wild bird's nest while it is being built or in use. That includes consciously using a hedge trimmer when there is a bird's nest in your hedge, and in the process of doing so, causing the nest to be damaged or destroyed." The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) backs this up. It says that a person is breaking that law if they intentionally damage a bird's nest while it's being used or built, and this applies to trimming hedges, saying: "The moment it becomes active, it is illegal to destroy it". Breaking this law could land you an unlimited fine and even six months in prison. The RSPB adds: "The consequences for the above, even in the event of harm to a single bird, nest or egg, is an unlimited fine, up to six months in jail or both. Suffice to say, it is certainly not a risk worth taking." They said: "Pieces of environmental legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended are regulated by a combination of the police, Natural England / Natural Resources Wales / Scottish Natural Heritage (based on location), the Environment Agency, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC), the local authorities, the Partnership of Action against Wildlife Crime (PAW), various public bodies, and relevant organisations based on the endangered species in question. "Once an action breaking the rules of the Act has been carried out, the offence will inevitably result in a police investigation. "The police will enforce part 1 of the Act, as it focuses on the fundamental wildlife protection over wildlife species and what exactly necessitates a breach of the rules. "In fact, dedicated departments of the police specialise in breaches of environmental and wildlife laws, such as the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) and Wildlife Crime Officers (WCOs). "Any law relating to the environment and wildlife are taken just as seriously as any other piece of active legislation. "Even in respect of a breach of the Act involving a single animal or habitat, the person responsible would be liable to pay a potentially unlimited fine, spend up to six months in prison, or possibly even both."
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Arran seabed project recognised by David Attenborough
Led by divers Don MacNeish and Howard Wood, the project sought to restore the seabed, which had been devastated by bottom trawling and dredging. The square mile 'no take zone', which is surrounded by a protected marine area, has since undergone a natural restoration. Read More: Lobster populations have quadrupled while the number of king scallops has increased six fold, though full recovery could take up to two centuries. The Lamlash Bay project has been featured in a new film by Mr Attenborough, Ocean, which was released to coincide with the UN Oceans Conference. One of the key focuses of the summit, which is being held in the south of France, is expected to be the impact of dredging and bottom trawling. In the film, Mr MacNeish talks about the drastic differences he noticed in the area after the three mile limit, which was designed to protect spawning grounds was removed. He told the BBC: "I just couldn't believe the regeneration that had happened and I was just swimming along with a demand valve in my mouth and a huge smile on my face. This is what it was all about. "I'm all for fishing, but not necessarily everywhere. We just need small pockets of protection to be able to reseed the entire area."
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Dear Richard Madeley: ‘How can I rebuild trust after years of alcoholic chaos?'
Dear Richard, Roughly six years ago, in my mid-20s, I found my life pulled out from beneath my feet. Nothing extraordinary, but a redundancy and the end of a long-term relationship quite simply crushed me. Prior to this I'd always considered myself a fairly resilient, capable individual. Not so. My response was one that surprised me and those around me – I simply hit the self-destruct button. In my case, that meant hitting the bottle. Hard. Safe in the oblivion that followed, I took consolation in the fact that I'd likely not live long enough to see the impact of my behaviour. Yet, a few years down the line, after extensive medical intervention, I find myself in near-perfect physical health. This is great and unexpected news, and I can't help but feel somewhat proud to come out the other side unscathed. However, the biggest problem now faces me: nobody wants to know me any more. Close friends, family, acquaintances – all have cast me aside. This I, at least to some degree, expected. I wasn't, however, prepared to be written off. I've never been a troublemaker and have never intentionally done anybody (besides myself) any harm. I certainly don't blame anyone for their caution, but to go from a fairly popular, friendly member of the community, to someone widely dismissed as a 'wrong 'un', is hard to take. I'm hesitant to leave the area I live in. I've been here all my life and I still feel a little too delicate to start anew. It's been hard enough finding a new job, considering the black hole in my CV. Should I simply give it time? I've been sober for more than a year now. I'm not a bitter person, but I feel I'm being served a lengthy punishment from which a reprieve seems increasingly unlikely. – LS, via email Dear LS, 'Yes. Yes. Yes,' is my answer to the question near the end of your honest, almost self-lacerating letter. You must give it more time. I fully realise that 12 months of sobriety, to you, feels like a lifetime. Presumably, the alcohol-poisoned years that preceded them are pretty much a blur, whereas now you experience every sober minute in sharp relief. But those around you will inevitably set this last year against all the long chaos that went before. Unlike you they'll remember everything that happened in all its excruciating detail. And they're probably suspicious; they'll need more evidence that you've genuinely – and permanently – changed before they risk investing in you again. I'm not saying that's right and I'm not saying it's fair. But as you're discovering, it's part and parcel of your journey back into the world of sobriety. So yes, you must be patient. By your own summarised account you treated those around you badly in the troubled past. That's not your fault: you were ill. But whatever wounds you inflicted you have to allow time to heal – which, in most cases, they will. Just give it time, LS, give it time. And, yes, in the meantime, be proud of yourself. You deserve to be. You've hauled yourself out of the pit. Well done.
