Rolex Bezel Insert Policy

[Toad monitor]

I have to confess I have never owned a watch in my life because I don't know how to read the things.

There that is now the end of the subject.

Try a Casio F-91 W. Digital plus easy settings for beginners, and £6.00 from Ebay.

[monogroover]

Rolex with any age on it will be a 'triggers broom'.

Mine's 37 years old now and hasn't had any new bits so far.

[Raffe]

I have to confess I have never owned a watch in my life because I don't know how to read the things.

There that is now the end of the subject.

You owe the fundraiser £5,000.

[bokbok]

Yes I was going to pass them on. This was a Daytona/ Sub / GMT11 because they were too conspicuous for me to wear at 70+ years of age. The 3 sons did not want them now but would take them on my death. Those three are kept in a safe and won't see the light of day until I snuff it. I now wear the Explorer1, Explorer11, JLC and Omega, all of which are inconspicuous.

What I am finding annoying is that I am being called a liar time after time (not by you) and I can think of better ways of spending my time arguing with the same gang hut mob.

They know I have the watches because that's why they won't take the bet because they know they will loose and yet it still goes on, so really I cannot see any point in continuing any more. Even if I post some pics of the things, the usual crowd will scream "fakes" so there just isn't any point in pursuing this.

Is the GMTII one you bought off smokey in 2014? Or the gmtII pepsi you nearly lost this year? As I remember your slogan everywhere on the forum "never sell a Rolex"

Sent from my SM-A245F using TZ-UK mobile app

[Mick P]

Is the GMTII one you bought off smokey in 2014? Or the gmtII pepsi you nearly lost this year? As I remember your slogan everywhere on the forum "never sell a Rolex"

Sent from my SM-A245F using TZ-UK mobile app

Same watch.

[kace]

Sometimes self insuring is the best option

Oh dear.

[Mick P]

Oh dear.

Note the date, I negotiated a better rate with the same broker due to the fact that only the low value ones are worn abroad. The valuable watches don't go abroad anymore.

You seem quite keen to prove I am a liar, bit sad really.

[blackal]

Jeezus! This one ain't for flushing away.............

[kace]

Sometimes self insuring is the best option

Note the date, I negotiated a better rate with the same broker due to the fact that only the low value ones are worn abroad. The valuable watches don't go abroad anymore.

You seem quite keen to prove I am a liar, bit sad really.

Not at all but the more you post the more knots you tie yourself in..

I'm keen to hear what your broker says about a day trip to London with all your watches though.

[bwest76]

Note the date, I negotiated a better rate with the same broker due to the fact that only the low value ones are worn abroad. The valuable watches don't go abroad anymore.

You seem quite keen to prove I am a liar, bit sad really.

If as you say you have a low value watch with you then there is nothing stopping you showing us a photo.

This is the same sort of Obfuscation I had to endure many times this year with Walts giving me excuses as to why they couldn't/wouldnt/cant remember there military number.

Let alone unit/weapons/drill/slang etc.etc.what you are doing is exactly what they do,it hacks me off.

No one here cares what value your watch is just that you have one, so Here is a good solution buy a cheap Casio of Amazon then post a picture wearing it,I will treat you if you like.

[ralphy]

It was the insurance broker who advised that pics sent onto social media could be traced to the location. They also stated that if the insurance company got wind of us, it would compromise any claim made. That has been made clear before.

I don't think that has been made clear before and furthrmore you have changed your story.

You originally stated:

I have a policy that has many named items within in it and the Broker advised me not to display the items on social media because some companies will argue a lack of responsibility and seek to reduce the payout.

In Micks defence Ralphy, both of the posts you have quoted effectively say the same thing. They certainly don’t contradict each other.

Both were the opinion of the broker that the insurance company may use photos on social media as a reason to reduce or refuse a payout.

I beg to differ: 'because some companies' has morphed into 'if the insurance company', which is the broker advising Mick P on his own policy, as in 'got wind of us'.
Along with 'it would compromise any claim made' which is only a 'could', not a 'would'.

But of course if he is 'self-insuring' as claimed then it's somewhat of a moot point.

R

[Reeny]

Please make it stop.
Can the nurse have the meds on standby, ready for the Iberian sunrise over the mediteranian coast tomorrow.

[jukeboxs]

...

But of course if he is 'self-insuting' as claimed then it's somewhat of a moot point.

R

Potentially not moot if it complicates any household contents claim covering non-watch items (I'm assuming that self-insurance only covers watches). This would apply to most on social media I imagine. [Anyway, I don't why I'm posting on this, I find it incredibly dull / childish, I must do better ... ]

[Reeny]

Dangling your arm out of a car window is OK.
But using a digital camera to take photos while at home, or out and about is frowned upon.
It just doesn't make sense.

I assume the insurance companies would be keen to claim contributory negligence if a property owner was lax enough to divulge on social media when the second home might be empty during the months of December and March.

[Dave+63]

Presumably self insuring means not insuring?

[learningtofly]

Presumably self insuring means not insuring?

Indeed, although it may imply the maintenance of a discrete "insurance fund" where one might pop a monthly payment that would otherwise go towards a premium. I always assume that those who claim to "self-insure" simply do nothing and hope for the best, though (and inevitably just sound a bit pompous).

[Mick P]

Presumably self insuring means not insuring?

That is correct, you basically insure yourself. I stopped paying into BUPA at the age of 60 because the premiums rocketed and I have a pile set aside if I need any treatment.

Anyway it's a new day and I am now going to shut down this gormless discussion because it has been flogged to death and it's become brain dead and boring.

The answer is simple. I am not going to send in any pics in order to keep the insurance safe and neither am I going to put myself at risk by taking a box full of Rolex somewhere just to verify I am not lying about them. Two people were given the chance to make a bet and they declined. The time has passed to call it a day.

In return I will never mention my Rolex collection again on this forum and for safety I will not even type the word Rolex again. Also the word insurance is on my banned list

If anyone wants to chuck back insults, they can do so, but I am no longer going to defend myself because it just feeds this squalid discussion and keeps it going.

I just wish some of the other contributors were as level headed as you.

[blackal]

Presumably self insuring means not insuring?

Indeed, although it may imply the maintenance of a discrete "insurance fund" where one might pop a monthly payment that would otherwise go towards a premium. I always assume that those who claim to "self-insure" simply do nothing and hope for the best, though (and inevitably just sound a bit pompous).

but in the event of (say) a fire, the underwriters if they know the watches exist - will claim 'underinsured' on the contents.

if you had £40-£50k in watches - that is a severe dent in your overall payout.

They'd laugh at "Yeah, but I self-insure the watches"

[Raffe]

That is correct, you basically insure yourself. I stopped paying into BUPA at the age of 60 because the premiums rocketed and I have a pile set aside if I need any treatment.

Anyway it's a new day and I am now going to shut down this gormless discussion because it has been flogged to death and it's become brain dead and boring.

The answer is simple. I am not going to send in any pics in order to keep the insurance safe and neither am I going to put myself at risk by taking a box full of Rolex somewhere just to verify I am not lying about them. Two people were given the chance to make a bet and they declined. The time has passed to call it a day.

In return I will never mention my Rolex collection again on this forum and for safety I will not even type the word Rolex again. Also the word insurance is on my banned list

If anyone wants to chuck back insults, they can do so, but I am no longer going to defend myself because it just feeds this squalid discussion and keeps it going.

I just wish some of the other contributors were as level headed as you.

Quoted for posterity.

[learningtofly]

but in the event of (say) a fire, the underwriters if they know the watches exist - will claim 'underinsured' on the contents.

if you had £40-£50k in watches - that is a severe dent in your overall payout.

They'd laugh at "Yeah, but I self-insure the watches"

Lots of variables in that scenario. There would potentially be some elements of risk, though, I'm sure.

[theancientmariner]

but in the event of (say) a fire, the underwriters if they know the watches exist - will claim 'underinsured' on the contents.

if you had £40-£50k in watches - that is a severe dent in your overall payout.

They'd laugh at "Yeah, but I self-insure the watches"

What's to say that the watches are even kept in the house and not in a storage locker somewhere. If they're not listed on the insurance then the presumption has to be that they're not on the premises.

On a different note, I find it odd that this thread is titled "Rolex bezel insert policy" which I started to read out of curiosity until I discovered that the last two pages seem to be an onslaught against a forum member called Mick P and whether or not he owns several Rolex. Honestly, who gives a ****

[Reeny]

It's a conundrum similar to Schrodingers cat.
No-one knows if it exists until the (safety deposit) box is opened.

[RAJEN]

Can OP change the title of the thread?
This is more about Mock and his watches and insurance than Rolex Bezel Insert policy.

[ben4watches]

Mick can we do the meet at the wolsley over breakfast please? Haven’t had their kedgeree for a few months now.

My choice of venue and breakfast choice when I’m in town, delicious.

[Fullbreakfast]

My choice of venue and breakfast choice when I’m in town, delicious.

Only with the benefit of the Wolseley's finest kedgeree can a man grow a moustache so luxuriant! Nutrition in its purest form.

p.s. We can't see your watch, missed opportunity.

[Fullbreakfast]

Only with the benefit of the Wolseley's finest kedgeree can a man grow a moustache so luxuriant! Nutrition in its purest form.

I used to like the "Ten Deadly Sins" at Simpson's. No longer a thing I'm afraid.

p.s. We can't see your watch, missed opportunity.

[Carlton-Browne]

I used to like the "Ten Deadly Sins" at Simpson's. No longer a thing I'm afraid.

What a pity.

[Wimm]

Only with the benefit of the Wolseley's finest kedgeree.

I was very disappointed by the Wolseley's kedgeree when I had it. It was more akin to a sloppy risotto.

Everything else was too notch and the devilled kidneys were lovely, if on the slight too spicy side for me.

[Alansmithee]

We should have a breakfast or lunch meet-up there at some point...

[wileeeeeey]

My choice of venue and breakfast choice when I’m in town, delicious.

Hard to beat. I do like it a lot but that alone and I leave hungry.