Interesting AD issue with new ceramic Daytona

[Chris_in_the_UK]

You run an AD and invest in stock, staff, premises etc. People come in, try your stock on, drink your coffee and then leave to buy the same watch new via a grey marketeer at a discount you aren't able to give.

You run an AD but can't get hold of the new Daytona for your loyal customers but they can go round the corner and buy one - doesn't look good for the authorised dealer.

This is what I meant by underming - both the credibility and the profits of the local dealer by dealers that I would expect are out of region.

This is all Rolex's own making TBH - they can hardly play hardball in the UK and not in Europe. It's like herding cats for sure but they have fed the problem hugely by action in one area and inaction in others.

[legin]

No one said otherwise. This does not give Rolex or ADs any right to demand that buyers do not resell their property (note, their property, not the AD's or Rolex's property).

The best advice is to lie to the AD.

N.B. The stickers issue seems like a minor side issue to me. The retailer can certainly choose in what condition they wish to sell an item while it is still their property. If they insist on removing the stickers before the sale is completed then so be it, but they have no right to remove stickers (or to insist on them being removed) after the sale is completed unless it was agreed with the buyer that this would be done.

I quite understand your comments, but I disagree with "Lie to the AD"

I have built up a great relationship with my AD and that is why I get offered options on lots of hard to come by watches. I.E the 5712 Patek that's coming in 2 months time .

If I lied to them that would ruin our relationship, I have already been told that Rolex will be watching the used market for the new Ceramic Daytona's although it just helps the marketing of the company for free.

Ultimately they can do nothing as they are just selling goods without a restrictive contract, that's not to say they would put pressure on the dealer not to let you get your hands on something else you want in the future.

[kaiserphoenix]

I quite understand your comments, but I disagree with "Lie to the AD"

I have built up a great relationship with my AD and that is why I get offered options on lots of hard to come by watches. I.E the 5712 Patek that's coming in 2 months time .

If I lied to them that would ruin our relationship, I have already been told that Rolex will be watching the used market for the new Ceramic Daytona's although it just helps the marketing of the company for free.

Ultimately they can do nothing as they are just selling goods without a restrictive contract, that's not to say they would put pressure on the dealer not to let you get your hands on something else you want in the future.

The 5712 is not that hard to get :) (just saying', if it was the 5711, then now you have a REALLY good relationship :)

[Jaacck]

Crazy world where they tell you what you can do with an item after you have spend quite a large sum of cash on it. Bit like the new ford gt having to fill out an application form to spend half a million $ on it. Shame you didnt buy it, would of loved to of seen the photos

[legin]

The 5712 is not that hard to get :) (just saying', if it was the 5711, then now you have a REALLY good relationship :)

Ha ha just wanted an everyday sport watch as he just got me a 5524G 001.


⛵️

[awright101]

I suppose by taking this stance they are trying to make sure the watches are gong to geniune buyers and not speculators. It won't cut it out completely but will make it awkward

If I was in Ryan's shoes ( and he is a very fair person going by recent sales) I would of one the same thing.

Andy

[kaiserphoenix]

Ha ha just wanted an everyday sport watch as he just got me a 5524G 001.


⛵️

Now the 5524 is hard to get!! Well done! haha

[Alansmithee]

This is all Rolex's own making TBH - they can hardly play hardball in the UK and not in Europe. It's like herding cats for sure but they have fed the problem hugely by action in one area and inaction in others.

I am curious about one thing - why is Rolex (so various threads here make it appear) so hardball in the UK and not so much in the rest of Europe? (or is that not the case?)

[Regular]

Isn't the UK currently the cheapest territory? Might be because of that if it's a new trend.

[W44NNE]

Each region has its own head I believe. Perhaps the UK Rolex person in charge is more strict than the rest.

I just got wind of another case where the warranty card would be held back by a dealer, and this time, even the box as well!!! They may as well have kept the watch in their safe to stop the poor guy trying to sell it. It's really over the top and I expect too many non-WIS will accept it and see it as totally fine

[Ar.parask]

From the AD point of view it makes sense.
I don't think this has anything to do with your snoopy.
They value you greatly as a customer that's why they offered you first dibs. If you want to pass they are going to offer it to the next one and so on. It seems only fair to me...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paskinner]

Each region has its own head I believe. Perhaps the UK Rolex person in charge is more strict than the rest.

I just got wind of another case where the warranty card would be held back by a dealer, and this time, even the box as well!!! They may as well have kept the watch in their safe to stop the poor guy trying to sell it. It's really over the top and I expect too many non-WIS will accept it and see it as totally fine

I don't understand the international structure of Rolex; but each area (such as the UK) has a different boss and they seem to pursue these matters with a different degree of energy. I'm told the UK is uncompromising on keeping a firm grip on ADs and trying to enforce a rigid pricing policy. You can only do that if demand is strong.
Oddly enough, I think a tough pricing policy can work out well for Rolex owners; who see the value of their watches defended. And if you are buying, you know you get the same deal as everyone else. Price and value aren't the same thing...which is why you get a huge discount on a new Vauxhall but none on a new Porsche.

[markrlondon]

If I lied to them that would ruin our relationship

My view is that a vendor who is trying to tell you what to do with your property after you have purchased it is the one ruining the relationship. Therefore giving them what they want to hear cannot possibly do any more damage. They've already done all the damage that can be done.

Ultimately they can do nothing as they are just selling goods without a restrictive contract

Exactly, hence the essential harmlessness of the 'lie'. Any relationship harm has already been done and their demands about your property are worthless and pointless.

that's not to say they would put pressure on the dealer not to let you get your hands on something else you want in the future.

I see that as entirely the dealer's problem to solve, not mine. There is no loss to the buyer since the dealer has already attacked the relationship between the vendor and buyer.

[bitfield]

My view is that a vendor who is trying to tell you what to do with your property after you have purchased it is the one ruining the relationship.

As far as I can see, a dealer is perfectly within his rights to ask you not to re-sell a watch (it could hurt his business). You're not obliged to agree to his request.

If you do give your word on the matter, however, then you should keep your word. If you say one thing and do another, then it's hard to think of any other way to describe that than 'dishonest'.

[markrlondon]

As far as I can see, a dealer is perfectly within his rights to ask you not to re-sell a watch (it could hurt his business). You're not obliged to agree to his request.

Yes, he can ask, although it is impertinent and disrespectful of his customer. It is in my view a dishonourable thing for a vendor to ask. As such it damages the relationship between himself and his customer and thus damages the dealer's future earning potential with that customer.

In my view the dishonour would be reduced (but the distaste would remain) if the vendor clearly stated before the sale that "no resale" is a condition of sale and that this term is then written into a binding contract of sale (with a limitation date). But it would seem that this is not what is happening.

If you say one thing and do another, then it's hard to think of any other way to describe that than 'dishonest'.

It should be noted that informally agreeing to something at the time of sale (i.e. where the term is not written into some kind of binding contract) does not preclude one from changing one's mind later. To change one's mind is not to lie. There is nothing dishonest in this.

Beyond that, I can only say what I largely said earlier.

I think that to say whatever is necessary in the circumstances that seem to apply here is entirely acceptable and appropriate in this scenario: If they ask for bullsh*t, give them bullsh*t. There is no honour in treating a dishonourable request with respect.

Reasonable requests (which this type of imposition is not) are a different matter and should be respected.

This is about the simple principle of not being dictated to (or even asked) about how one disposes of one's own property.