Well done , only I'm not against the fight but rather how it's led and my comments have previously voiced my concerns in the same vein .Originally Posted by Webwatchmaker
A funny song nonetheless
Hi , I purchased some parts that didn't fit the watch cases they were meant to and they refused to swap or refund and became arrogant towards me once I said I wasn't a watchmaker , I took them to my watchmaker who I use and is well known and he agreed and has had the same issues with items . It's not an isolated case .
At least you have a sense of humour.......
Brendan
I've had relatively few problems with faulty parts from Cousins. I had an Omega spring barrel that was wrongly packed by Omega ( right package , wrong part), and an Omega screw-down crown that fell apart when fitted. In each case I returned the parts with a covering letter because the on-line process was a waste of time. I was sent replacements with no problem.
On another occasion I received a crown for a 60s Omega that was obviously very old stock; the seal had decomposed to a sticky goo. I ended up prising it apart and replacing the O ring rather than fanny about trying to send it back........ it was easier.
Paul
So you admitted to Cousins that you lied to them when you signed up for an account by claiming to be in the trade when you are not, and lied again when you accepted business to business terms and conditions, when in truth you did not agree with them. Having therefore established that you lie to obtain what you want (or to use your words are "Unbelievable!"), could it be possible that their reaction to your request for a swap or refund was to justifiably treat you with suspicion, and you have decided to reinterpret this as arrogance because you couldn't get what you wanted?
Now you have made public the case for the alleged aggrieved party, would you also care to make public the invoice number and date of the transaction along with the case details that you claim Cousins said the parts were supposed to fit? If so, I will obtain a response from them, and make that public on this forum also. Then other forum users will be able to develop their own view on Cousins in a fair and balanced way.
That is the correct way to conduct a proper discussion, isn't it?
Last edited by stevendomb; 26th September 2017 at 18:56. Reason: spelling
Steve, I fail to see what you're achieving by getting embroiled in discussions like this and responding in the manner you have. I'm all in favour of drumming up support for Cousins in the current situation, I`ve made my views clear several times, and your presence on this forum is clearly aimed at promoting the cause. I`ve no issue whatsoever with that, but your blind loyalty to Cousins despite the valid criticism raised by several people, isn`t doing the cause any good. Getting in a spat like this impresses nobodyy, and getting on your legal high horse really does you no credit.
Step back, review your objectives, and try to do something positive. Getting wider publicity is thoroughly justified, I support it wholeheartedly, but you're in grave danger of overplaying your hand on this forum.
This isn`t a courtroom, you're not talking to a bunch of lawyers.
Paul
The only view I'm starting to form is that you are probably doing more damage to Cousin's reputation on this forum than any cabal of Swiss lawyers ever can; another couple of months of pompous twaddle from you and I'll probably start cheering for Swatch in the full knowledge that it will cost me a fortune over time. If you really are the best advocate* that the British horological trade can put forward I'm starting to think we're probably shot in the paddock before the race has started. Please stop.
* not meant in the legal sense.
In the Sotadic Zone, apparently.
Cousins always been ok with me once returned an expensive £160 bezel remover with no issues.
Paul,
I have spent a great deal of time and money over the past 15 years supporting the survival and revival of the watchmaking trade in the UK. Without doubt the biggest problem that the trade faced prior to the parts issue, and the thing that allowed the brands to abuse the trade without effective opposition, is the lack of understanding of basic business practices and ethics.
We have seen watchmakers turn against each other. We have seen a 'dog eat dog' attitude. We have seen lies and misinformation. We have seen a total lack of understanding that the relationship between supplier and customer requires honesty both ways, and worst of all we have seen a total lack of mutual respect. You would not believe the level of personal abuse that has been hurled at me for having the temerity to become involved in fighting for the trade.
My support for Cousins isn't "blind loyalty". It is the same support that I give to anyone who is trying to ply their trade in an honest fashion. If someone wants to put up in front of me allegations of wrongdoing against another, then I am definitely going to want to see the evidence, and if it doesn't stack up, then I am going to expose that.
Honesty in business isn't optional for me, it is mandatory, as is mutual respect. Both need to be brought back into the trade, and those that think the reverse need to be gone.
I would appreciate your support for those objectives also.
Steve
Steve, Cousins' attitude towards customer relations could be a lot better. Whether you accept that or not is up to you.
I know '+1' doesn't do your post justice but I like the measured, WT-compatible language you used to express views that I believe quite a few of us share, and using my own words would have been less refined.
I never had to deal with Cousins, yet I obviously have a vested interest since I hope people like Brendan can get hold of the parts he may need to repair my watches. But if Steve has been pouring money for 15 years into this, he should really stop wasting whatever credit he still has here down the drain.
Last edited by Saint-Just; 26th September 2017 at 19:50.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I’m not levelling this at anyone in the forum and I also remove staff at Watches of Knightsbridge and Fellows from this. But in general I find Watch traders short and sharp in conversation , seemingly quick to rise to irritation and prone to run to the small print. The general attitude appears to be “you are going to try it on Sonny” .
The whole secondary market could do with a customer centric make over. I know there are always good exceptions but so often I find myself going in to a shop preparing myself to have a fight rather than enjoy a perfectly enjoyable hobby. Looks like Cousins carry on with this behaviour.
In their defence, Cousins are a specialist wholesaler and they've every right to expect their customers to know what they're trying to buy, they're not geared up to have a 5 minute conversation with joe public who doesn't really know what he's looking for. However, Cousins manage to piss people off who do know what they're looking for!
As for watch dealers, ADs and jewellers in general, I still haven't decided whether it's better to act dumb or let them know that you know your way around the game.
Paul
I think that the main reason for this post is Cousins fight against the Swatch Group who are clearly trying to restrain the independent watch repairing trade.
I admire them for doing this and of course there is a degree of self interest. But that interest is pointless without the watch repairer.
I notice that the BHI have done nothing and continue to sip their pink gins and self congratulate.
When this matter is settled hopefully in our favour, then I have no doubt that several other watch spare parts suppliers will arise.
Cousins may well then need to repair their acknowledged poor customer relations or lose business.
On the other hand there are a lot of people who pretend to be members of this trade and waste a considerable amount of time pestering the suppliers.
For the time being I respectfully request that members concentrate on the important matter here or they will find that either repair costs of their loved watches will be extortionate or as has been debated in CH there will be no repair service at all.
Brendan
Your pompous arrogance amazes me the further you go . If I`m not happy with a company its my right to say so . its not Libellous its my point of view . I dont have any responsibility to you to deal with a matter that goes back maybe 5 years or so . i cant remember and certainly dont have the paperwork.
As for lying I guess I was economical with the truth , but as I have said before , do Cousins do anything to check the validity of their customers ? No is the answer , they need the business and Ill guess that they have hundreds of hobbyist watch tinkerers on their books happily buying parts and tools etc and they are happy to supply them after all it would be easy to check their residential addresses they post goods to and cancel the customers order . Cousins offer zero advice to anybody apart from their documents online so I cant see why you are intent on re iterating the business to business line . Its purely a framework set up to bypass distance selling regulations and the consumer rights protection .
You have accused me of `hurling ` mindless abuse and stated that Anthony cousins was the man to change things . Now you have planted yourself on your Ivory tower and concluded that you are the man to sort out historical issues with the company by positioning yourself as one can only derive as a middle man even though in previous posts you claim you were not here to do this . Its all very laughable .
I`m still waiting for you to elaborate why there are no Implied terms in business to business contracts !! Or maybe you havnt reached that chapter in your Law for dummies edition
No it isn't. Regardless of who said or did what, this whole topic is a distraction from this thread and frankly, you do yourself a disservice with your attitude. Whether you agree demonloop, Tomaitch and others, it would behove you to show some humility and simply avoid engaging any further on this subject, and you should certainly avoid antagonising people by calling them "a liar" (ironic when you are also casually throwing around implications of libel).
Frankly, it is turning people, myself included, against you purely for personal reasons (and probably creating more damage to the Cousins brand than the original complaint), when the focus should be on the main topic of this thread. I know from your earlier responses that you will now most likely attack me for this post, but I would suggest you think carefully before doing so, as it shows a certain lack of judgement.
I also agree with others that you have posted far too many words in this thread. You have posted many enlightening things that are worthy of being said and I thank you for doing so. However, it is a shame that you feel the need to mix that in with so many irrelevant side topics. I wish you could stick to the point and try to get to it concisely, without attacking other members or being overly defensive all the time. Please, at least in this thread, where your input is important, stick to commenting on the things that fall within your expertise, as the knowledge and viewpoint you bring is extremely welcome. The rest really isn't and if this weren't such an important topic, you'd be on my ignore list already.
Agreed, and would suggest that any further discussion about Cousins returns policies be taken somewhere more appropriate, such as here:
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...d-faulty-goods
A very valid point and I wonder what it would take to get them involved? I think there would be a lot more universal support for the action if it came from the BHI. I would imagine some members might even be willing to contribute to a fund to help pay for it. It affects us all, yet it's unfortunate that the only person doing anything about it seems to be the last person anyone is willing to really support, except in the most hypothetical of principles.
Totally agree , I made this comment months ago , the BHI are after all the custodians of the UK watchmaking Industry !
To be fair, Cousins do not specify that only watch repairing businesses can log on as a registered customer.
Garage forecourts newsagent, and corner shops can sell button batteries and watch straps.
Cousins sell their generic after market parts cheap (then they charge you massive postage and packaging fees).
If they can't get the parts in the first place, they can't sell them cheap.
So I very much hope that their venture is successful, and the flow of parts continues.
When they have the supply of parts secured, they can concentrate on why they are sending out broken parts. Or as happened to me - old stock quartz movements with flat batteries.
Thats your fault as you are not a trade to trade customer!
I am trade to trade, I have my own business.
Therefore I fully comply to their registration requirements.
(even though my work and business are not watch or clock related)
I was being sarcastic!
No problem Tomaitch,
I feel your pain.
Cousins lost my regular custom a few years go for the price of a 90p battery.
So I am slightly annoyed that they are spending 15-years and lots of cash on this legal challenge.
However - once they get that out of the way they can review their business model, and have a good look at their non-existent customer service record.
They do get you to sign to say the goods are for use in your trade but as I commented before most genuine Trade only Wholesalers need proof of business by Tax returns, business premises, VAT registration etc. cousins ask for none of this. Its all very loose and rules used to suit them selves not their customer.
I am now beginning to understand why so many complain about Cousins poor customer services.
I tried to find out for a customer if they sell a jump hour movement and have been sent on a pointless circular waste of my time.
Brendan
I know who does sell them.
Thanks. But I don't need 10 of them !
Brendan
This is a toxic subject for a watch forum. Though many, if not most watch buyers will be unaware, it has far reaching consequences. It’s unsettling, bad for business, best kept down.
This Cousins chap is proving to be a bit of a nuisance.
Time to employ the dead cat strategy.
Seems to have worked too.
To be fair to Cousins (my post#375), I had a response from them offering to investigate the movement I was enquiring about if I send pictures of it.
Brendan
Still waiting ...............
Oh dear, that didn't go well.
ZURICH, April 3 (Reuters) - Swiss watchmaker Swatch Group won a partial victory in a row with a British group over supplying parts to independent repairers when Switzerland’s highest court ruled the case should be heard by a domestic court.
Swatch has been locked in a legal battle with Britain’s Cousins UK which sells watch spare parts to independent repairers and said it stopped receiving supplies from Swatch and its ETA movement unit in late 2015.
Cousins UK had threatened to sue Swatch at the High Court in London to force the resumption of supplies, but Swatch prevented this by starting a procedure to have the case heard by a commercial court in the Swiss capital, Bern.
The Bern court had declined to take up the case, saying Swatch had not shown sufficient cause for a local trial, but Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court ruled in a verdict announced on Tuesday that Swatch had a sufficient interest in having the case heard in Switzerland.
The case will now revert to the court in Bern.
I thought this would happen. The Swiss won't let a major player like Swatch be left to the mercy of a foreign Court.
This does not look good for Cousins.
A real shame for all watch repairers.
If Cousins do win in the end, I have no doubt that there will be a resurgence in the number entering this trade.
However there will also be a number of fresh parts suppliers spring up. I would welcome this because I am less than happy with Cousins terms of service too.
I recently bought an ESA chronograph movement from Cousins which did not work. Despite asking them several times for an exchange, they refused. I bought another from Gleave & Co. who said that they would be happy to exchange it if it failed.
Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app
I think I’ve reached the stage where I’m past caring. I’ve voiced my anger over it many times, I totally disagree with what Swatch Group have done but they’ve got away with it and I can’t see much chance of the situation changing.
This latest development doesn’t sound at all good, I’d like to think Cousins can still win but I doubt it.
Restricting parts supply doesn’t help watch owners in any way, regardless of what Swatch Group may claim.
Paul
Anyone thinking that this case will be conducted on an entirely impartial basis is an idealist and innocent of the highest order. Companies like Swatch will be using ANY leverage they can to protect their monopoly and as this case is a 'home game' for them I would be shocked for it not to be found in 'Goliath's' favour.
SteveDimb , no post for 7 months ! Online today guess hes still reading his Puffin books...
I’m not sure that if cousins wins more will enter the trade? The British school of watchmaking has done more for Horology in the UK in the past 10 Years than the BHI or any clock making guild has done in the past 20 years. Who was it that came to the rescue of our trade, Swiss watchmakers money thanks to a few English chaps in the trade who could see the end approaching. 10 years on more than 70 WOSTEP watchmakers, working from Rolex, Omega, Patek to our own Watchmaking demigod Roger Smith.
There are also those who have gone independent. Perhaps it might be actually worth hearing the opinion of a watchmaker starting out in today’s watchmaking world as an Indy.
There was a list published on this site of Watchmakers forum members can use. Ask them if the restriction of ETA and Swatch group parts to Cousins has harmed there business.
To my understanding they have only stopped supplying parts to Cousins.
The school will tell you that more than 95% of its students are still employed within the watch industry in the UK.
Now the cost of a course is 16k for 2 years; 70k contributed to fighting this case. How many people could have received a watchmaking education, you do the math.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
I think you miss my point.
I have no issue with any watchmaking schools.
The spare parts issue affects everyone. Not just Cousins.
Independents all over the world will soon face problems obtaining parts.
Swatch is refusing to supply anyone outside of their group.
Please look into his a bit more !
Brendan
Swatch Group have stopped supplying parts to all wholesalers worldwide, not just Cousins.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Swatch will only supply parts to accredited repairers, they'll defend that decision by claiming it's in the best interests of the customer.
No point going over old ground again, this debate has been thrashed around several times.
LVMH have a totally different policy, they're far more relaxed about supplying parts to repairers.
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 2nd May 2018 at 19:09.
That sort of nonsense post does you no credit, it adds nothing to the debate. Steve didn`t exactly cover himself in glory with some of his comments and his general demeanour on this forum but I see no point in making childish jibes like this.
Clearly he felt his involvement on here might help the Cousins cause.
Paul
I agree with the above. Some of your posts are incredibly rude Tomaitch and just irritate, not help.
Also, Steve does have a point. The Swiss will be ruthless.
If it's any consolation, I am hearing rumours of a rising up of smaller watch manufacturers in CH and independents there. Parts supply will undergo drastic changes but not all negative if this comes to fruition.
Brendan
Last edited by Webwatchmaker; 2nd May 2018 at 19:44.
This is why I’ve had no sympathy for Cousins from the start.
Are we to believe it’s ok for them to treat customers with total disregard, just because they can, but it’s not fair when it happens to them?
It’s the chickens finally coming home to roost.
Last edited by demonloop; 2nd May 2018 at 19:53.
For once I agree with you.
Their returns policy, their price 'promise', lack of phone contact turn Cousins into a dubious east end style market trader.
However, nobody comes close to the amount of stock they hold.
Brendan
Last edited by Webwatchmaker; 2nd May 2018 at 19:55.
I'm on holiday this month and will be chatting to some Sicilian independents.
And will let you know their thoughts when I return....
Brendan
We won’t be surprised if some senior Swatch bozos find horses heads in their beds.......that’ll focus their minds
Haha ! You're reading my mind again Paul.We won’t be surprised if some senior Swatch bozos find horses heads in their beds.......that’ll focus their minds
Brendan
A lot of Steves comments were also ill founded and groundless .
Agreed, I think we all knew he had his own agenda, but I take the view that he's on the right side in this fight and on that basis I cut him some slack.......although he did display a talent for digging himself into a hole!
Paul
Spare parts for Swiss independents.
Here is a reply I got from one of my pals in CH:
Hi Brendan,
supplying spare parts from ETA was a bigger problem some years ago.
Because now Sellita, Soprod and Ronda started to sell a very similar movement, ETA got a problem because overproduction, and seams that they consider to sell again spare parts in future.
The brands from swatch group are a other problem. Omega for expl. doesn't want to sell parts, except if you make several trainings in the main house here in Bienne. After you can buy spare from cal 550 up.
All the older caliber, like bumper aut.,321 chrono, F20 and more old cal., you don't get anyway, because they do not have enough spares for them self
Finally we can say... the brands refuse to sell spare parts. Thats the reason why i can sell in my shop. The independent watchmakers of course are unhappy, but they don't do anything... They are not organized, and of course the companies are too big for prosecute...
Thats what i hear about this question...
Best Regards
M.
Brendan
An alternative strategy for Cousins (and the rest of the watch business) to consider is to aggressively promote the manufacture of generic Omega parts. Clearly, this would be a major undertaking fraught with difficulties, and it wouldn't be feasible to produce everything. Things like crowns and handsets would be fairly easy to produce, movement parts less so, but going down this path may be an effective way to undermine Swatch's position on restricting parts. If the parts restriction started to look futile it may be in their best interest to make parts freely available again.
Is this a better way of investing money than chasing Swatch Group through the courts in a costly battle that can`t be won?
Cousins introduced a range of generic Omega acrylic crystals, complete with the tiny symbol in the centre, that looked OK but unfortunately proved to be poor quality. That's not a good start, I tried fitting one and it cracked very easily so it ended up in the bin and I vowed not to buy another. Likewise with the generic bezel inserts for modern SMPs, I tried one and it was so poor I didn`t charge the owner for it. If parts are to be produced by generic suppliers the quality MUST be right.
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 4th May 2018 at 14:27.
Really? That sounds like straight up trademark infringement. Generic parts of equal quality would definitely be a good thing, but that sounds like a really bad idea, poor quality aside. Consider how that would go over if it was the Rolex crown instead of a Ω character.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote