Agreed, but as a professional repairer what’s your opinion of the stance taken by Tudor (Rolex) to state that the watch must be serviced simply because the bezel is a bit stiff? Even if there is evidence of some refinishing I fail to see how this translates into the watch requiring service and the balance of the 5 year warranty not being honoured? If they have found evidence that the watch is running badly consistent with a hard impact they've got a valid case, but surely this should be shared with the owner of the watch who is expected to pick up the bill?Originally Posted by me32dc
I’m struggling to see why they couldn't remove the bezel, give it a clean, replace the bezel spring if necessary and keep the owner happy. Clearly it makes sense to check the running of the watch and confirm all us well, but if it turns out there is an issue surely this should be communicated back in a comprehensive manner?
The Rolex/ Tudor service centre appear to be acting in a wholly unreasonable manner to me and that’s putting the OP in a difficult position, they’re creating a catch 22 situation. If this watch simply requires a quick bezel removal, clean, and check then surely that should’ve happened and everyone would be happy!
Good points. The vast majority on watches on eBay will surely be out of warranty anyway.
I do wonder if eBay even realises what they are doing risks voiding any remaining guarantee or, as you say, consider it the lesser of two evils. Either way, I'd be a bit miffed as a customer to think I had warranty, to one day find out it may be void due to eBay opening the watch.
You really shouldn't be engaging with the seller at all, other than through the eBay Not As Described case. And they should be refunding the full purchase price, including postage both ways.
As far as eBay's "authentication" goes, I strongly suspect that it will be nothing more than a cursory glance by somebody with minimal training. It would be much cheaper for eBay to refund for the odd counterfeit watch which slips through the net than to employ a team of people who know what they are doing.
I find it hard to believe the ebay verification involves opening a watch!
You'd hope not as I doubt they'd know what they were looking at but...
Post #21, OP wrote: "I've bought a few costly watches via eBay with absolute confidence using the authentication process. If, as is claimed, the authenticator removes the case back, I'd guess I would be in a similar position if Tudor had spotted this?"
I'm not familiar with the particulars of the process though.
In other threads members have been in contact with ebay and they say they do.
I vaguely remember a tale of a Linde Werdelin being damaged by the authenticators as they have rather customized cases.
Sent from my Redmi Note 9S using TZ-UK mobile app
The authenticator is a company named Stoll & Co. who originally did this for eBay in the USA. They set up a UK branch to provide this service in the UK. See https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...=1#post5946641 for a little more info.
I am quite, quite certain that they know what they are doing in general. But the warranty issue does raise some uncertainties, doesn't it. It must have been covered a very great deal in their previous USA operations (and already a lot in the UK).
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, if all they do is open the watch and look at it then in general this needn't invalidate manufacturers' warranties. Many manufacturers wouldn't even necessarily know if this was the case.
It would be interesting to see if it was possible to get a Stoll representative or employee to comment here on the warranty issue, wouldn't it (not necessarily in this thread though!).
Last edited by markrlondon; 8th June 2022 at 23:26.
Despite my longer message above which may have been worrying, try not to worry. :-) I think this will work out ok for you. See the postscript in particular.
The lack of tag can't sensibly be an issue where items turn out to be not as described (or faulty within the claim period) and is far more likely to apply only where the buyer just doesn't want the watch.
I agree on both points. It's very good indeed that you have an email contact at eBay so as to be able to confirm issues with them.
The fact that they provide a human email contact strongly suggests that they understand that high value transactions like this may well be complex and may need a non-standard approach.
Has he done this via the eBay system? (I know that the system provides a mechanism for the seller to make an offer to the buyer in this type of scenario). If so that's good. It means that if you reject his offer then eBay will probably rule 100% in your favour.
If he hasn't done it via the eBay system then it doesn't count as far as eBay are concerned.
As other have said, keep all communication with the vendor via the eBay system and politely stand firm. You are in the right on two points, the bezel and the lack of warranty.
Last edited by markrlondon; 7th June 2022 at 20:51.
See two message above.
My impression is that Stoll and its watchmakers are competent and know exactly what they are doing. They'd have to be in general, otherwise the authentication scheme would have collapsed under a weight of damage and errors by now, in the USA and UK.
Yeah - that is the development I feared, when detouring from the straight E-bay rejection route.
As mentioned - stop corresponding directly with him, but keep all correspondence.
Paul, all those are good points. But Tudor clearly offer their warranty on their own terms.
As I've said previously, I think it might pay to think of this less from a watchmaker's perspective and more from the perspective of a manufacturer of luxury goods that are just not meant for end user repair of any sort (at least not within the manufacturer's warranty period). Their commercial approach is absolutist, and it's their warranty to be absolute about.
And of course Tudor aren't intentionally making the OP's life more difficult. Any such difficulties are just a corollary of their policies colliding with buying a second hand item with a not-fully-known history.
Comments about not communicating with the seller are noted...I've stopped.
I do feel some sympathy for his position, but that's waning. I very much suspect he's had it polished in his short ownership. Lot's of talk of 'his watchmaker' and refusing to recognise that he may have a case against who ever sold him the watch on eBay in March if he was not aware it was polished.
He's still messaging claiming it's my fault the watch has no warranty, I should be accepting fault for the bezel malfunction and shouldn't be shifting 'blame' to him...bizarre!
There was also a hint that he'd refuse the return as it was not the same as when he sold it, "It had 4 years of warranty when it was sold to me and I'm returning it with none"!
Completely or wilfully ignoring the point that the polishing voided the warranty during his or previous sellers ownership.
I have neither the time or inclination to respond to comments like that.
All the messages are via eBay's messaging system and I'll tell eBay they can view them if needed.
Hopefully hear from eBay tomorrow about the security tag not being fitted - hopefully not an issue & sense will prevail. Just need shot of the thing <sniff>
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Oh dear. It would do him so much more personal credit to just accept the return in full.
Clearly these claims of his make no sense.
Good. Let's hope that eBay are sensible about the tag.
So he’s still claiming you received a watch with warranty yet you have proof from the manufacturer the watch has no warranty.
Case closed.
Sounds like a part time watch dealer to me who’s bought it cheap and had it tarted up with a polish by his watchmaker before listing it on eBay.
Your opinion only. I'm assuming the seller did know the implications of his refinishing (I would, and I would expect him to know this also).
Anyway, I hope you get it sorted, OP.
Think you are correct. Looking at his feedback, he's definitely an eBay Del Boy, specialising in shoes and watches. Far too large a turnaround of goods to be a shoe or watch collector.
Defiantly. Anyone on eBay calling themselves a watch collector Is a stealth part time dealer.
Possibly......but if the guy doing the refinishing was as good as me it would’ve been nigh- on impossible to spot! That’s a slightly tongue in cheek comment, if a refinished watch is inspected under a loupe an experienced eye will spot that its been refinished, I suspect in this case that it was somewhat more obvious and the good folks at Rolex spotted it easily. I still think their attitude is appalling and I don’t buy the argument that they offer a warranty on their terms etc....luxury goods etc......
Even if the watch has some cosmetic ‘ history’ that doesn’t necessarily imply that it requires attention to the movement. Provided tge watch runs correctly I see no reason why the watch shouldn't have been fixed, with the equipment and expertise at their disposal the watch and bracelet could've been refinished on a goodwill basis. Let’s remind ourselves how expensive these watches are!
Putting it bluntly, the folks who dictate policy at the service centre are full of shit and they know they’re full if shit, they’re being manipulated by the parent company in the interests of maintaining some type of brand image. Anyone who buys into Tudor or Rolex is buying into this, enjoy the warm feeling whilst they piss up your back.
Thankfully some of the microbrands treat their customers far better.....trust me on this one.
When I phoned eBay in my Steinhart case I asked what happens if the seller refuses the delivery of the returned watch. The rep told me that after 5 days of first delivery attempt, eBay would refund me and claim back from the seller.
I think you’ll be ok. I get the impression the seller knows exactly what he should do but is trying to wriggle out of it. He will probably appeal against the eBay decision - my seller did but eBay rejected the appeal.
I can't help but feel this has been needless complicated. There is no need to do deals with anyone. It's incredibly straightforward. Due to the refinish, bezel damage and lack of warranty, the item is not as described. That's a fact beyond reasonable dispute. That's all you need. Tags etc are irrelevant, it's not as described. Seller offers are irrelevant, it's not as described. Don't engage in conversations about would of, could of etc, it's irrelevant.
Item not as described. Raise case. Return. Full refund. End of story!
But it's not an argument; it's an actual fact. We can tell it's a fact because it's what they actually did. ;-)
Of course I agree with you from a technical perspective, a watchmaking perspective.
But as I keep on saying, I think it now makes more sense to think of this not as a watch, as such, but as a luxury item, a black box of sorts. It's not a watch; it's a product.
Well, yes! :-)
P.S. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't approve of their approach. I think they should remember that their products are watches and that absolutism of the sort they practise is not ultimately customer-friendly. But it is what it is. It is, as you say, about the image.
Last edited by markrlondon; 7th June 2022 at 23:35.
But it gets complicated because a third party is involved who supposedly check the watch for authenticity and to ensure it is physically as described in the advert. They obviously missed the polishing and faulty bezel then the OP removed the tag that they use to imply buyer acceptance of the third party judgement.
So, now you’ve potentially got a situation of doubt that needs eBay to judge…who did the polishing and voided the warranty, the seller or the OP. If the seller doesn’t admit to polsishing and the authenticator doesn’t admit to missing it, you’ve one word against two others.
Hope it gets resolved in the OPs favour, I suspect it will end up that way anyway.
So you are only assuming he lied.
Anyway, you know better than most people here who seem surprised that refinishing voided the warranty.
In fairness to the authenticators, the OP says the bezel became stiff to operate after a few days, so at that point there wasn't a problem to spot.
It may have been said but are the authenticators there to judge the watch is a genuine item and it’s condition or to just check it’s genuine?
I imagine just to check it’s not fake so removing the tag should not change the situation, simple answer is watch is not as described by seller, send back and have no contact with seller.
This is a bit of a grey area that is adding confusion in a case like this. Reading the Ebays FAQ, it says they carry out a "multi-point inspection including crown, bezel, dial, case, clasp/buckle, hands, end links and reference number to verify authenticity and accuracy against the item listing."
In this case, the seller omitted to describe the polishing (or did so in a very ambiguous way). It sounds like it was done to a degree that the OP didn't spot at first so the authenticators either ignore missing details or don't inspect closely with a loupe.
I agree - I'd be very surprised if OP isn't successful. He should be able to get a refund through being not as described.
Im not sure why some think that Tudor is being unreasonable here.
The watch has obviously been through several pairs of hands in its short "life" and has been damaged enough at some point to require refinishing - extent and method of damage unknown as its been polished out.
Watches aren't warrantied to repair user damage, or to put right repair damage - this includes un-gumming a bezel that could have polishing grot seizing it.
I dont see why they owe a warranty repair to the potentially 4th owner, because owner 2 damaged it and 3 had "his watchmaker" tidy it up to sell on eBay.
There's a long chain of hands there.
Different story if the watch was un-messed-with and the gmt movement got up to its date-flip tricks, but this isnt what happened.
The case polishing is visible and referenced in the vendor's advert. I.e. It demonstrably happened before the vendor sold the watch to the OP.
Since it is the polishing (refinishing, as Tudor refers to it) that has voided Tudor's warranty, this means that the warranty was already gone when the watch was sold to the OP. And so it cannot have fully matched the vendor's description as being under warranty.
Last edited by markrlondon; 8th June 2022 at 11:26.
If Tudor/Rolex deemed that the bezel issue was attributable to user actions or error in some way, which may be the case, surely they could fix it and charge a fee for doing so on the basis that the repair wasn`t covered by the warranty? It's the lack of flexibility and common sense that I find frustrating and illogical.
I would also expect some degree of goodwill, especially if the problem is a quick fix and costs virtually nothing in new parts. I assume the bezel isn`t damaged, if so they would've stated this on the quote and included the cost of a new replacement? Likewise if the case was distorted. It sounds to me like the bezel needs removing, cleaning, and refitting, that's a 20 minute job!
Just had a response from eBay regarding the security tag...having read my 'why I should return without tag attached' blurb, they've agreed.
Just got to get the watch back from AD - still in transit from Tudor service centre.
I don't see that the authenticator can argue on any issue with Tudors report. Good news!
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
I can see Tudor's stance - as soon as they discover that the watch has been refinished by non-authorised agent - they halt right there.
Avoids situations like "What do you mean - you won't service the watch? You were happy to take the bezel apart!"
Excellent!
I am glad they are being sensible on this point, and it is good to know that they really do have actual humans involved for these relatively high value claims.
Quite logical too…the tag is meaningless - even if you had kept it on, Tudor would have removed it to produce the report! Sounds like this will go the right way and the amateur dealer will learn a lesson.
Sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree. It's not complicated at all. Removing the tag prevents a normal return (i.e. 'I didn't like it'), it does not prevent a return for 'not as described'. It's a clear cut case.
A little update...thought I was doing well to jump through a few hoops to get the return underway. Ebay told me on Monday i have until the 14 June to return the watch to the authenticator. The local AD asked Tudor to return the watch on 7th June, with the weekend nearly upon us I contacted the AD yesterday (had to use email as store is getting refurbed) astonished to be told it will probably not be here until the end of next week or possibly later because my 'watch is being re-assembled and it takes time'!
I'm waiting to hear back from them with clarification.
I'd have thought Tudor would've given the watch a visual check and decided a warranty repair wasn't going to happen because of the polishing and that would be it. Unless they thought they'd strip it in readiness for me to accept their estimate?
Just hope eBay will not play silly beggars and give an extension for delivery to authenticator...I'm supposed to be going on holiday middle of next week too.
Jeeeez! From what you related earlier - Tudor appeared to examine the exterior of the casing first, and then condemn it?
Maybe they do remove the movement first then bung the bracelet and case in the US tank before inspection of case and bracelet??
Good luck with it again - sounds like bloody struggle!
I wouldn’t mention any stripping down to eBay, just the fact that the watch may not arrive back from the inspection before you go on holiday.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
probably good advice!
Demand to speak to someone at the Service Centre, ask what exactly has been done and why they couldn’t simply clean the bezel! The only stripping down required to assess this watch was removal of the caseback and removal of the bezel, and possibly removal of the bracelet.
Time to talk to the monkey, not the organ grinder, get a straight story. If the bezel’s been removed to assess damage it would have to be cleaned, so its likely that the problem has been solved! I would also ask for the timing and amplitude figures from their assessment. Even if a watch has had a hard impact there’s a good chance no damage has resulted to the movement, this can be assessed by visual inspection and testing on a timegrapher.
This is why I’ve always avoid the AD middleman acting as an agent. Deal directly with the manufacturer and you can speak to them directly. Quite often once you have used an AD as an agent, they refuse to speak to anyone but the agent.
How would you go about getting a Tudor serviced without an AD?
Things are on the up again...
Contact with the local AD explaining the re-assembly. Screenshot of email attached. It's Tudors way of doing things and all in their own time. Mildly frustrating.
Note para 3 of AD'S reply. 'In case of future warranty work etc'. A mistake; I'd interpreted that as the bezel claim not being accepted due residue from polishing but warranty would remain for any future issue's...wrong, there is no warranty full stop.
I'm not going to chase Tudor, I've full confidence in the local AD and I'm not going to jeopardise my long standing relationship with them by questioning his responses with Tudor.
Good news from eBay. The current pre-paid return label is valid until 21 Jun, if the watch is not back to the AD by then, let them know and they'll send another. I'm not getting squeezed by any time constraints.
Have to say I'm rather impressed in the way they've responded to my concerns. Gives me confidence I'll achieve a happy outcome.
HAGWE all :)
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Just walk into Rolex St James and hand it over.
Done exactly the same with Breitling and Omega. Rather than use an AD, send directly to the Tunbridge Wells or Southampton service centres respectively.
Dead handy ................ If you live in/near London.
Eek. That's a tad unexpected.
Good luck with getting an extension from eBay.
<having read the rest of the thread>
Excellent from eBay. And a relief, too.
Last edited by markrlondon; 10th June 2022 at 16:31.
Bit odd that it says that, I just received a watch that went through the authenticator and it states clearly on the leaflets that they only check authenticity and not the general timekeeping and operation of the watch beyond a very brief test.
Sounds like the site FAQ writers run off a different script to the authenticators.
I was aware of the Omega and Breitling centres but wasn't aware of a Rolex equivalent.
So if you don't live in London it's an AD or nothing, unless St James allows any old riff raff to post their grubby broken Rolex/Tudor watches in for service?
Last edited by Onelasttime; 13th June 2022 at 22:50.
London, West Malling, or an AD.I was aware of the Omega and Breitling centres but wasn't aware of a Rolex equivalent.
So if you don't live in London it's an AD or nothing, unless St James allows any old riff raff to post their grubby broken Rolex/Tudor watches in for service?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
