In the latest edition of FORBES magazine, widely-published watch journalist Jack Forster, in his multi-faceted article Time Bandits (pages 156-160 of the May 7, 2012 issue), resurrects the story of the now famous “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe watch which sold at auction in June 2010 for $254,500.  Unfortunately (though unintentionally), Perpetuelle was not credited for the brief mention that the story received in FORBES. Yes, while “famous” is perhaps a bit strong to describe the notoriety of this event, the Curious Case of the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe was a story that originated here at Perpetuelle.com, and for those of you who missed it the first time around, follow me now as I recount the saga.  This is one interesting story!

It started in June 2010 with a Patek Philippe Ref. 1463 watch to be auctioned by Christie’s — the watch was purportedly of great provenance, a gift to a Mr. Donald Woolbright from the late billionaire, investor, aviator, & film producer-turned philanthropist Howard Hughes.  What a watch to own, eh?!  Christie’s was certainly not shy in playing up the Howard Hughes connection of the watch.  Naturally, I featured the watch on Perpetuelle on June 3, 2010, expressing admiration for Hughes and excitement for the auction.  Not so fast, though — an unsolicited and completely out-of-the-blue comment by one Paul B. Winn on my article Howard Hughes Patek Philippe Ref. 1463 Up At Auction turned my world upside down and launched a tantalizing story of mystery, stonewalling and deceit.  It unfolded over the next two weeks on Perpetuelle.com.

You see, Paul B. Winn, as I soon learned, was a former personal secretary to Howard Hughes — one of the rare men in the notoriously secretive Hughes’ “inner circle” on a day-to-day basis.  In his comment on Perpetuelle.com, Winn was highly skeptical that the watch (nay, any watch) was in fact gifted to Woolbright by Hughes.  Upon receiving Winn’s comment (you can read his remarks here), I exchanged emails with, and then proceeded to speak at length with him.  Based upon these conversations and my further investigation of Donald Woolbright (who I learned had recently passed away), I was increasingly convinced that Paul Winn, a man who I could see having no horse in this race, was right — the Patek Philippe Ref 1463 was NOT gifted by Howard Hughes to Donald Woolbright.  Empowered by the facts of my investigation, I was determined to bring the truth into the light.  I was confident that Christie’s would act honorably and pull the watch from the auction lineup.  I was wrong — dead wrong.

My investigative research revealed that Donald Woolbright, among other things, was a street-hustler with 26 arrests on charges ranging from burglary to fencing and assault to carrying a concealed weapon.  He had only a faint (and unseemly) connection to Howard Hughes.  Indeed, Woolbright’s only documented connection to Howard Hughes was for his involvement in “Hughesgate” which resulted in Woolbright’s indictment for receiving stolen property and attempting to extort a $1 million ransom for papers that were stolen from Hughes’ Romain Street offices.  Clearly a man whose credibility could be considered lacking.  And certainly not the type of person upon whom Howard Hughes would bestow a Patek Philippe watch.  At least that’s the only logical conclusion that I could arrive at.

With this information in hand, my next call was to Christie’s auction house.  Upon my inquiry as to the provenance of the watch, my suspicion was even further heightened.   It was clear that I caught Christie’s flat-footed.  Once Christie’s learned I was questioning the provenance of the watch, they began to stonewall.  First, the watch department passed me to the press department.  Then, days later, a terse statement was issued (…the auction will go on!).  Unwilling to back down given the litany of information in support of my case, I persisted.  Still, Christie’s press representatives refused to return my repeated phone calls — even though they were fully aware that I had raised serious, legitimate doubts as to the provenance of their “Howard Hughes” watch.  Far from asking for the world, I had only a few simple questions which would easily put the dubious story of the watch to rest.  Who told Christie’s the story of Donald Woolbright and this watch? Did Christie’s independently corroborate this story (i.e. that the watch was given by Hughes to Woolbright)? Is there any tangible/physical evidence to support the notion that this watch has any association with Howard Hughes (e.g. the handwritten note)? If so, has the authenticity of the tangible/physical items been corroborated?  Either willfully ignorant or completely clueless, it did not look good for Christie’s.

Undeterred, I decided to publish an Open Letter to the Christie’s Watch and Press Department, just one day before the watch was to be sold at auction.  Clearly, my message was that Christie’s should pull the watch from the auction, pending further research given the Patek’s dubious and undocumented association.  Alas I was not persuasive enough.  Nor did the public support of Geoff Schumacher — Las Vegas writer, author of “Howard Hughes: Power, Paranoia & Palace Intrigue” (Stephens Press, 2008) and proprietor of The Howard Hughes Blog — bear any credence with Christie’s.

On June 16, 2010, the so-called “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe Ref 1463 sold for a whopping $254,500. 

And that is where the story ended.  To this day, Christie’s has not provided me with ANY information or documentation which supports the purported provenance of the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe.  Christie’s is, to me, the most disappointing actor in this entire saga.  The power was theirs to stop the auction in the face of an overwhelming case that the watch’s provenance was not as it was purported to be.  The onus was on them.  Money and hubris are not easily given up, unfortunately.

If you’ve read this far, I thank you and I hope you’ve enjoyed the report.  Though I had put this series of events well behind me, the FORBES mention brought it vividly roaring back to the present and I felt compelled to recount the story.  My hope is that the purchaser of the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philipe Ref 1463 might one day find my writings here, and the two of us might engage in a delightful conversation on the topic.  For those who want more, I suggest reading my series of blog posts in reverse-chronological order in order to experience the saga as it unfolded on Perpetuelle.  As always I welcome your comments.

Kyle Stults, Perpetuelle Editor-In-Chief

THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE HOWARD HUGHES PATEK PHILIPPE

by Kyle Stults, Perpetuelle.com

Howard Hughes Patek Philippe Ref. 1463 Up At Auction, June 3, 2010

The Curious Case of the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe Ref 1463, June 14, 2010

The Curious Case of the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe Ref 1463, Continued, June 15, 2010

“Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe Ref 1463 Sells Amid Controversy, June 16, 2010

Closing Details on the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe, June 18, 2010

Addendum:  Our “acknowledgement” from the author of the story in Forbes:

Just came to my attention that @perpetuelle wasn’t credited properly as a source in an article I did for ForbesLife . . .

— Jack Forster (@jackforster) April 28, 2012

@perpetuelle Kyle my sincerest apologies –your reportage on the Hughes watch provenance question was great stuff

— Jack Forster (@jackforster) April 28, 2012

I am so utterly disappointed with Christie’s behavior (not answering legitimate questions that were put to them) in the recent case of the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe that I wanted to lay out in greater detail some of the findings of my investigation which ultimately led to my view that the provenance of the watch was suspect.   I had initially planned to publish some of these details prior to the auction, but I did not do so on the belief that Christie’s would have answered my questions and made the need for such detailed discussion irrelevant.  Before I get into details, let me first say that my original article on this watch (June 3) reflected great excitement for the watch to be sold at auction.  It was only after details and questions were brought to my attention that I decided to change my posture on the watch.

In brief, the two areas I will drill-down on here are: 1) differing accounts of Donald Woolbright by a self-interested parties (Christie’s and Woolbright) vs. non-interested parties (2 authors of Howard Hughes biographies published in 2004), and 2) a couple of “oddities”  including a “note” from Hughes to Woolbright which accompanied the watch, and Woolbright’s obituary which makes no mention of the man’s 6+ years of employment for Hughes.

***

Meet Donald R. Woolbright (Christie’s Account)

You can read the full account in the e-catalogue, page 266, but I shall summarize here.  According to Christie’s, the watch comes from Donald R. Woolbright, a man who was contracted by Hughes to “perform various surveillance assignments” in the mid-1960s.  The watch has purportedly been with Woolbright (now deceased — more on this later) and his family since it was given to him by Howard Hughes.  According to Christie’s, after one particularly “extensive” surveillance assignment, Hughes was so very pleased with Woolbright’s performance that he decided to give Woolbright the watch as a bonus.  And so the Patek Philippe Ref. 1463 (today, Christie’s Lot 385) was purportedly delivered to Donald R. Woolbright, along with a note from Hughes — “From my wrist to yours, very pleased with your results. Many thanks, Howard.”

Meet Donald R. Woolbright (Biographers’ Account)

I cite both Citizen Hughes, by Michael Drosnin, and Howard Hughes: His Life and Madness, by Donald L. Bartlett & James B. Steele, in which Donald Woolbright is mentioned many times.  The numerous references to Donald R. Woolbright in the aforementioned biographies are quite revealing as to this man and his background, and they seem to tell a different story than the Christie’s account.

Michael Drosnin writes on page 24 in Citizen Hughes:

A product of the north St. Louis slums, the car salesman [Donald Woolbright] had run up a hometown police record almost as long as Gordon’s list of screen credits.  He had twenty-six arrests, on charges ranging from burglary and fencing to assault and carrying a concealed weapon….Back in St. Louis, police called him a “nickel-and-dimer”, a street hustler with no real stature in the criminal community…

Barlett & Steele gave a similar introduction to Woolbright on page 524 of Howard Hughes: His Life and Madness:

The car salesman was Donald Ray Woolbright, who had moved to Los Angeles just three years earlier.  Back in St. Louis, where he grew up in the city’s slums, Woolbright had complied a record of two dozen arrests for a variety of alleged offenses, including burglary, assault, and counterfeiting.  When Woolbright moved to California in 1971, the intelligence unit of the St. Louis Police Department sent a message to the Los Angeles police advising them of his background and describing him as a “con-man, burglar and fence.”

Of note, in the combined 1,100+ pages of these two books there is absolutely no reference to Woolbright being a “surveillance” man for Hughes.   The reason that Woolbright is mentioned in these books is because of his mysterious involvement in “Hughesgate” and a notorious incident in Hughes’ life known as the “Romaine Street burglary”.

Woolbright’s involvement in the  (never solved) Romaine St. robbery eventually led to his indictment for receiving stolen property and attempting to extort a $1 million ransom for the papers that were stolen from Hughes’ Romain Street offices (see page 542 of Howard Hughes: His Life and Madness). He was convicted on the extortion charge, but later acquitted on what could be considered a technicality.

A man claiming (I say this only because I have not attempted to verify his identity) to be Donald Woolbright’s son commented on one of my earlier articles that it was Hughes himself who orchestrated the Romaine Street burglary.  I am not aware of evidence which supports this notion.   Also asserted by Woolbright’s son is that “What many do not know is that Mr. Hughes had extensive surveilence done on his own employees.”  but again I am not aware of evidence that supports this assertion.

Donald R. Woolbright’s Obituary

Donald R. Woolbright passed away on March 14, 2009 in Ulman, Missouri.  This is consistent with historical record from one of my cited sources — we know from page 533 of Howard Hughes: His Life and Madness — after the Romaine Street saga, “late in 1974, Donald Woolbright packed up his family, sold his house in Canoga Park, and moved back to Missouri, where he bought a small farm near Williamsville, a tiny hamlet in the Ozarks about seventeen miles northwest of Poplar Bluff.”

Here are the relevant lines of his obituary, the full text is posted at Alternative Funeral & Cremation Services of Saint Peters, MO:

Donald Ray Woolbright, age 68, died Thursday, May 14, 2009 in Ulman, Missouri. Mr. Woolbright was born September 4, 1940 in Trumann, Arkansas, the son of the late Clyde William and Jalah Idena Sandlin Woolbright. He was retired from the automotive business, was a veteran of the United States Army and a member of Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church.

Curiously, there no mention of Woolbright’s 6+ years of employment for Howard Hughes (which Woolbright “always fondly remembered”, according to Christie’s).

The Note from Hughes to Woolbright

As I mentioned above, when the Patek Philippe Ref 1463 watch was purportedly delivered to Donald R. Woolbright it was accompanied by a note from Hughes which read:

From my wrist to yours, very pleased with your results. Many thanks, Howard.

The oddity here is that the oft-paranoid Hughes was notorious for NOT wearing a watch or carrying money, according to Paul B. Winn, a former personal secretary of Hughes.  Sure it is possible that Hughes was just being cordial, but given the other questions in play here, I have to wonder about this note.  Also, it is unknown whether or not this note even exists or if it is just part of the “story”.

***

In summary, it was with these details in hand that I submitted the following questions to Christie’s via email (they refused my phone calls) and in my open letter:

• Who told Christie’s the story of Donald Woolbright and this watch?
• Did Christie’s independently corroborate this story (i.e. that the watch was given by Hughes to Woolbright)?
• Is there any tangible/physical evidence to support the notion that this watch has any association with Howard Hughes (e.g. the handwritten note)? If so, has the authenticity of the tangible/physical items been corroborated?
• Was/is Christie’s aware of the accounts of Woolbright as detailed in the two aforementioned books?

These questions were — and remain — unanswered.

Lastly, I will lastly add that Geoff Schumacher, author of Howard Hughes: Power, Paranoia & Palace Intrigue (Stephens Press, 2008) and proprietor of http://www.howardhughesblog.com also voiced his serious doubts as to the watch’s provenance.

At this point, I do not plan to pursue this matter further and barring any developments this will be my last post on the subject.  I felt it was important to lay out a few additional details for the readers of this blog.

“Lot 385″ Sold On a Story….Howard Hughes Turns In His Grave…

SOLD!

for

$254,500

-

“…Unfortunately the purchaser of this watch remains undocumented and sales records of this transaction may not be available…” (page 266, Christie’s June 16 Auction catalogue)

It is unfortunate that serious questions regarding the provenance of this watch were posed to Christie’s, yet Christie’s did not answer them.  In my view, unless and until these questions are properly answered by Christie’s, this watch’s provenance, namely its purported association with the late Howard Hughes, should be considered highly doubtful.

Perpetuelle’s additional, in-depth coverage of this watch can be seen here:

1. The Curious Case of the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe Ref 1463, Continued (June 15, 2010)
2. The Curious Case of the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe Ref 1463 (June 14, 2010)
   
3. Howard Hughes Patek Philippe Ref. 1463 Up At Auction (June 3, 2010)

An open letter…

Dear Christie’s Watch and Press Department:

Yesterday I submitted a few questions to you in an attempt to clarify and better understand the provenance of the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe Ref 1463 (“Lot 385″ in your June 16 (today’s) auction).  I did this in good faith and because, as I also indicated, the account of Donald Woolbright in the Christie’s catalogue is inconsistent with two meticulously researched biographies of the life of Howard Hughes and in which Woolbright is mentioned numerous times (Citizen Hughes, by Michael Drosnin, and Howard Hughes: His Life and Madness, by Donald L. Bartlett & James B. Steele).  In my view as well as others, these inconsistencies call into question the watch’s purported association with Howard Hughes, specifically that it was gifted to Woolbright by Hughes.  Your initial response to my inquiries, as I noted here, was that “we are researching the inquiries and will respond accordingly.”

Today, you gave me the following response in regards to my inquiries: “After further research of this item, Christie’s is pleased to offer the Patek Philippe Reference 1463 on June 16 as planned.”  First let me say that you can rest assured that I have no doubt that you are pleased to offer the watch as planned!  Bravo and enjoy the commission.  However, I would like to make clear that your pitifully empty response in no way addressed my inquiries.

Maybe I was a bit naive in thinking that you might directly answer my questions.  Maybe I was also a bit naive in thinking that “answering questions” was a standard part of the transparency and trust that is paramount to your business.  I find the lack of transparency here unfortunate.  Were I an interested and potential bidder for Lot 385, would you treat my inquiries in the same way?

I also find it unfortunate that a former personal secretary to Howard Hughes (whom I consider to be a generally non-interested party in this matter) and the ostensible consignor of Lot 385 (whom I consider to be a self-interested party in this matter, much like yourself) are engaging in a “battle of words” elsewhere on my blog when I believe that you could so easily put all the curious minds to rest by sharing, for example, some or all of the carefully documented set of corroborating and independently verified evidence that you presumably have on file.   But you have not, at least to me, and this has only served to heighten my sense that the full story behind this watch is far from known.

These things said, I thought I might try once more to gain some clarity as to the provenance of Lot 385, and so here (again), are my questions:

• Who told Christie’s the story of Donald Woolbright and this watch?
• Did Christie’s independently corroborate this story (i.e. that the watch was given by Hughes to Woolbright)?
• Is there any tangible/physical evidence to support the notion that this watch has any association with Howard Hughes (e.g. the handwritten note)? If so, has the authenticity of the tangible/physical items been corroborated?
• Was/is Christie’s aware of the accounts of Woolbright as detailed in the two aforementioned books?

Without answers to these questions, it is my view that this watch’s purported association with Howard Hughes is just that — purported and unproven.

Clarifying facts are needed…

On June 3, 2010, I wrote an article about the “Howard Hughes” Patek Philippe Ref. 1463 watch.  It was subsequently brought to my attention that there are inconsistencies in the story of this watch, namely its purported link to American icon Howard Hughes.  The watch, whose value Christie’s estimates to be $150,000 – $200,000, is to be sold by the famous auction house (as “Lot 385″) on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 as part of the “Important Watches Featuring The Leo Collection: 31 Sophisticated Wristwatches Curated by Frank Schilling” sale.

You can read Christie’s full account of this watch in its e-catalogue for the auction (page 266).    Troubling inconsistencies in Christie’s account of the provenance of this watch arise when compared to other publicly available information and conversations with those who were close to Hughes.

These inconsistencies have subsequently been brought to the attention of Christie’s, along with questions which attempt to clarify the provenance of the watch.  Christie’s thus far has only stated “we are researching the inquiries and will respond accordingly”.

A complete response is thus pending — and expected — prior to seeing this watch go under the hammer, if it should go at all.

As are many of the stories intertwined with the life of Howard Hughes, this one appears to be a long and convoluted one.

Update: I would be remiss not to credit Massimo and the readers of his fine blog at Orologi di Classe (Italian) for being the first (June 2) to point out that the PP engraving on the buckle of the watch was also misspelled.  While I have not questioned the authenticity of the Ref 1463 itself, I can say that this feature is certainly an oddity!

Stay tuned in.

Editor’s Note: Since publishing this article, serious doubts as to the provenance of this watch, namely its purported ownership by and link to Howard Hughes, have been raised.  Christie’s auction house has, thus far, refused to answer our questions on the matter.  Despite the serious doubts that we raised directly with Christie’s, they auctioned they watch to a buyer who paid a whopping $254,000. I  strongly recommend you read our additional coverage (links at bottom of this post).

Here’s a vintage watch that caught my eye — it is a Patek Philippe Ref. 1463, owned claimed to be owned by the famous U.S. aviator, entrepreneur, movie producer — and billionaire — Howard Hughes (b: December 24, 1905 – d: April 5, 1976).  It will be auctioned on June 16, 2010 by Christie’s.  Its value is estimated at $150,000 – $200,000.  Reportedly, this is the first time that this watch has been offered for sale to the public.  It was originally produced by Patek Philippe in 1949 and sold October 11th, 1950 (to an unknown party presumably to Howard Hughes).

I, for one, am utterly fascinated with Howard Hughes.  Hughes was a man of great intrigue, excitement, passion and mystique.  His exploits and achievements were numerous and include, for example, Oscar winning films (from the 1920′s, 30′s and 40′s), flying around the globe in 91 hours (in 1938), creation of the giant “Spruce Goose” aircraft (which couldn’t even really fly), ownership of TWA airlines (in the 1950′s and 60′s), living and owning several casinos in Las Vegas (1960′s) and many other wild and crazy business and pet projects.  Sadly, Hughes went off the proverbial “deep end” late in his life and spend most of his final years living reclusively and battling severe paranoia and obsessive-compulsive habits.

Thankfully, though, he is mostly known for his positive achievements, many of which live on today including for example the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for biomedical research and science education.

You can read and see more of Howard Hughes’ Patek Philippe Reference 1463  on the Christie’s website.

As for Howard Hughes, I recommend Howard Hughes: His Life and Madness by Donald Barlett and James Steele.  I read this book a couple years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it!