Reply With QuoteGod yes send it back.....
Guys,
I had my 2001 GMT II repaired and serviced in November, when getting it back from Rolex it was running quite fast, around +90s per day I sent it back to Rolex and have received it back again and its currently running at around +30s per day.
As we all know it was a ridiculously expensive service, It was keeping better time before it went back to Rolex. The repair by the way was for a strap and bezel not the movement, they also swapped the crystal, as all that was taking place I agreed to have it serviced and resealed at the same time. ended up costing me £1,900 for strap, bezel, crystal and service.
whilst this was expensive, am I having to high an expectation over accuracy?? should I simply sent I back for the third time?? I haven't tried the overnight bedside table regulator trick yet, that first??
many thanks
Jason
God yes send it back.....
definitely send it back to be regulated correctly
Back, back and thrice back. Not good enough.
Absolute disgrace. How the watch was sent out running so fast is beyond me.
Send it back with a strong letter of complaint. I`d be having a serious word with someone about this, it sounds like there's been some poor communication regarding the first return.
The watch should run at between +1 and +3 if it's been regulated correctly, +4 or +5 at the extremes IMO.
Paul
Send it back! It's just not good enough regardless of price. To have it returned running in a worse condition than when you first sent it for a service is not funny and would wind my up big time. Send it back till you get it returned in a state that acceptable.
Another sorry tale of poor work by Rolex. Send it back.
"I haven't tried the overnight bedside table regulator trick yet, that first??"
What is that???
BTW Has quoting broken on the forum?
"I haven't tried the overnight bedside table regulator trick yet, that first??"
That can help with a few seconds here or there but not half a minute. It hasn't been regulated correctly, send it back or give it a few days first and see how it goes and if no better then send it back.
I'm very surprised. Presumably as it's a chronometer? It legally needs to perform to the regulations?
£1900? Have they said you can stand upright again yet? And the watch still performs out of spec, scary.
Another? Assuming they are servicing tens or hundreds of thousands a year, is it common then?Originally Posted by Tony
Agree with everyone else Op, send it back. I'd give Rolex St James a call too and let them know your displeasure. This isn't what Rolex do.
Good for the 1950s and 1960s watches, not really for modern movements. Certainly not for a fresh-from-service watch!
I have a 70s 5513 and it doesn't seem to make much difference to that
What was the cost breakdown as I paid £430 for a standard service on my Submariner a couple of years ago?
My watch runs at c. +3 secs/day.
The bracelet will be the best part of a grand, service and bits £600? + VAT ?
Cheers..
Jase
My Rolex just had a service at the Kent H Q, £340 and it took four weeks. I think they are usually pretty good....but not in this case. My three Rolex watches are all accurate to within two seconds a day, and are very consistent.
No other brand I have owned has equal led this, perhaps I have just been unlucky.
NB: my GS Quartz doesn't count!
What legality?
It's not against the law to have an inaccurate chronometer, granted poor show from RSC, but it's not a criminal offence
cheers guys, thats pretty overwhelming, I will find out exactly where it was sent as it was done via local jewellers, rolex receipts and workshop notes included, I will call rolex first and confirm the dates both were completed...
each time the watch is away for 3-4 weeks, its getting frustrating and maybe I should get a bit grumpy with them this time... I will see if I can find my paperwork with the estimate of the repairs broken down....
I never take this watch off, not since I got it in 2001, its been through so much, mountains, diving, potholing, all sorts, then my ridiculously embarrassing story about the watch damage... wait for it.... I was making the bed! tucking in sheets, brought my hand up quickly and caught it on the bedside drawers, pulled the bezel straight off and then two days later the bracelet just failed luckily whilst I was simply sat at my desk, it fell off, one of the pins bent and damaged from the dangerous bed making!!
ended up having to claim on my house insurance for the repairs, watch only cost me bit more than the repairs!!
thanks again for the encouragement to get back to rolex, I will do it directly this time and see what they say...
Jason
Nothing to do with the legality or otherwise; it's obvious the watch has a fault!
Someone deserves a bollocking for sending it out like this and hopefully that's what will be delivered.
A chronometer rated watch can be expected to perform to chronometer spec when new; once it's not new all bets are off. However, a watch can run at around +1 to +5 in regular use whilst being way outside chronometer spec.
One obvious question to ask for the OP: has the watch been fully wound before testing?
Paul
Thanks for the clarification. So a chronometer certified watch need only to perform to those standards when new? If a few months down the road it slips beyond 5 secs / day it's tough luck?
Doesn't the guarantee eg 5 years on Rolex cover the accuracy?
It should as regulation is under the warranty but always due to the company
I've had useless service from Rolex too - it took them 3 attempts to fix a wonky crown on my old Sub LV, pathetic really. I moaned and it got fixed in the end - I asked them to fix it at service initially, they just made it worse (so the cost was all covered by the normal service) The craziest thing is, after the service the technician wound the watch and set the time for me, then screwed the crown in. When I checked the crown back at home, it actually felt really odd and it was easy to spot the crown tube was actually installed 'wonky' (!) - so it went back (taken personally by me on the train to St James). 2 weeks later, went to get it, and checked it myself - still felt odd and there was an odd grinding feeling from the crown - so I gave it straight back (again) - no real opology from them, nothing. The third time it was finally fixed, but I subsequently sold the (now perfect) watch and don't intend ever buying another Rolex. Cost as much as a decent secondhand car (or a not decent new Dacia!) But they can't even fix a wonky crown?
He he he regular as clockwork!
I should add, the initial problem (and the reason it went in for a service after 5 years) was the date change mechanism was playing up - the crown of as straight when they got it!
Because I still can't believe it actually happened tbh!
Doesn't that apply to all watches or just Rolex mechanisms?
i know mate, I would still be fuming as well.
No, just Rolex ones, they are vastly different to all others that mere mortals make , its a secret Rolex thing, its what makes them so amazing
( just kidding in case I have to explain it to some )
RobDad,
Lol! I won't respond. 😄
Send it back and ask for compensation due to their incompetence — normally in the form of full or partial refund as a gesture of goodwill.
spoken to St James today, its going back again in the next day or so, chap asked me to mention his name on the return info and he would arrange for the workshop manger to deal with it personally....
I am sure we all have story's attached to watches, my mother contributed 50% to this watch when I bought it encouraging me to do a deal with the supplying jeweller to do the rest interest free which I did, I could never afford one now or then without her help. Because my watch was back with Rolex for the second time I was not able to wear it at her funeral two weeks ago... I cant be bothered to give what is tantamount to a "sob story" to Rolex, they cant undo that....
Now that I am noticing, I can see other people have issues with their standards, not something I every imagined I would have...
found my paperwork and the costing's were as follows:
Full Service £474.00
"exchanged" bracelet £990.00
Bezel Insert £ 42.00
Crown (for w'proof) £ 46.20
Glass £186.00
Grand Total for making the bed!!
£1,738.20 (80% of what I paid for it)
I never imagined they'd be so bad either. They're seriously lacking in the technical, QC and customer service departments. They'll never see another watch of mine, and it's put me off ever buying a new Rolex or Tudor ever again.
Awful service but there aren't exactly dozens of people with similar stories on here at least (unlike OSC Southampton) so I think it fair to say you have been rather unlucky and have suffered atypical service. The bracelet exchange is an eye watering cost though. How that is justifiable is beyond me. Are they made from myrrh or unobtainium?
When I bought my GMT (2002 model) it was running erratically shall we say. I rang Rolex and they said due to its age etc. it would need a full service, but come back looking like new for just over £400
Thanks to being a member here I remembered people talking about the best independent guys out there, so I got in touch with Duncan at Genesis. After he received it and had a look inside he said all the parts looked fine so he just needed to adjust the beat rate etc, which would be his minimum fee of £50. I also bought a new insert as mine was scratched up and unlike RSC he sealed the old insert and sent it back at no extra cost.
I also had a SubC sorted out by RSC under warranty, and couldn't fault them. However, in future I think I'll continue to use Duncan, or an independent for out of warranty servicing.
Oh and after a couple of years it's still running at about +2 seconds A WEEK :-)
"£1,738.20 (80% of what I paid for it)"
Have you seen second hand prices on GMT2s lately? You'll be happily surprised.... Imagine if you'd wasted your hard earned on a Speedmaster or a Seiko? Then you'd be in tears.
As far as the servicing goes, you've obviously been very unlucky, human factor most likely at play, It'll get sorted out I'm sure.
I tried this and it worked a treat on my Omega SM 300.
I didn't know about the magnetizing either so I have ordered a de-magnetizer as well.
I don't remember any threads on that subject?
No, that's not what I meant.
A chronometer rated watch will perform well within the stipulated timekeeping limits and it's reasonable to expect it to do a so for several years. Provided it's a good quality watch it should be possible to return it to that standard by correct servicing. However, once it gets to a certain age and extensive wear sets in, it may struggle to meet chronometer standards. However, and this is the part folks seem to struggle with, it can be keeping time at between 0 and +6 secs/day but does NOT necessarily meet COSC criteria..
People think their watch is running 'within COSC spec' if it does better than -4 to +6 secs/day. That's got nothing to do with COSC. COSC is all about precision, and how consistently the watch will run.
Take my Rolex Explorer 1 for example. The watch had been Rolex serviced a few months prior to me buying it, but it always ran slightly fast by around 10 secs/day. When I got around to checking it properly, it was very consistent but always 10 secs/day fast. This was confirmed on the timegrapher which showed good positional agreement. I regulated it to run a +2 secs/day and that's what it now does. Contrast this with some of my old Omegas; they will run between 0 and +5 secs/day consistently, but the timegrapher shows positional variations of 20 secs between the fastest and slowest positions. That's way outside COSC, but the watches are 45-60 years old and were never chronometer rated from new so I don`t expect better.
As I keep saying, none of this is rocket science. An old watch with a worn movement that's serviced and regulated correctly can be perceived by the owner to be running better than a fairly new watch that needs regulating correctly.
Paul
Update....
got my watch back over the weekend, third time lucky it would seem. I didn't get any notes back whatsoever from the workshop, luckily I called myself for an update on Friday to be told that they identified it had a weak main spring and it had to be replaced.
its disappointing they did not identify that in the first service and the second "regulation"
in the first 24 hour test it was running brilliantly, maybe only +1 second/nothing.
will keep an eye on it over the next week...
Jason
Posting Permissions
