Ally always aims to maintain his reputationOriginally Posted by Buster73
Why is it that when people ask about the authenticity of the watch they only give small photos?
But based on what I can determine from those the watch looks correct but the date magnification doesn't.
Maybe the crystal has been changed to aftermarket part.
Likewise my father too, especially so as he got older.
You really are pathetic.
OP: '"I've asked for my Mum to take some better pics and will post when I get them".
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I note that the OP did state bricks and mortar store but also notice that the Detling Antiques and Collectors Fair was on this weekend. I’ve been a few times to this and there are usually a few dealers in watches and clocks around. A couple seem to be ok but a couple do openly sell fakes. I’ve never seen anyone there selling fakes as real but that’s not to say that it wouldn’t happen. Hopefully, if not genuine, it was purchased from a store as I would imagine that things would be more difficult if it was purchased at the fair.
He is very intellectual and academically a clever man, but very trusting and not cynical enough. As has already been guessed by others he took confidence from the fact that he was buying from a shop.
Regardless of his (or anyones) money to sense ratio, that doesn't give people a right to take advantage.
Thanks for all the comments and assistance, I'll post more details as and when I get any!
Last edited by danmiddle2; 13th January 2019 at 21:39.
I’d begin to hit the seller with the sort of questions that might make them think it’s not worth the hassle to keep resisting the refund.
“Can you confirm what due diligence you followed to check that this isn’t a stolen watch? If you checked with any database, which one was it and when?”
Anyone who gets sniffy at this question most likely hasn’t carried out any such check.....and would probably rather take the watch back (to sell to someone who doesn’t want to know?) rather than risk having to give a refund AND lose the watch, if it is stolen.
A lot of bad / fake / stolen property is believed to be moved through the transient, occasional fairs.... so it will be interesting to have the nature of the seller identified.
Let us not lose sight of the fact this could be a largely correct watch that is not stolen; neither the refusal to provide a receipt not anything else here automatically make it a wholly bad watch, although many of us wouldn’t touch the seller for these reasons alone.
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 13th January 2019 at 22:05.
is it only me that thinks the bracelet looks off? where the links join the clasp looks poor to me.
ktmog6uk
marchingontogether!
This made me laugh
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks decidedly 'dodgy' to me. They say buy the seller, not the watch - but the actions of the dealer seem off to me too.....
Welcome!
Maybe not, but I don't think Ally is out of line for saying it. Not helpful, but a lot more polite than what first entered my head. £5.5k and no receipt.
Yes, but as far as I know both early SD and Sub bracelets (93250 and 93160 w/ 592b end links) were solid as the springbars were compressed through the spring bar holes in the case.
I've never seen a fake bracelet that has these solid end links. Always either hollow, or with access to the spring bar collars.
Ultimately the only thing that is jumping out from these pictures is the cyclops and the dodgy selling practices.
So by the serial number, it says a P which is about 2000. Its a 18/19 YO watch. From the small pics I can't really see any anomalies apart from the cyclops which clearly has the wrong magnification. Either an after market crystal OR one of the run of genuine OEM Rolex crystals that had the incorrect mag. Not a massive issue to rectify at all.
The bracelet looks a little worn near the SEL judging by the angle of the links from the SEL. Definitely the correct bracelet for age as it has the solid back SEL where access to the pins is through the pin holes in the lugs.
Last edited by paneristi372; 14th January 2019 at 10:09.
You could certainly take it back if the jewellers did not tell you the Crystal was aftermarket as it is not a full original Rolex which is what it was sold as unless they stated otherwise. If goods are not as described then there should be little argument.
All well and good saying that, but if bought in person the shop will say the customer had ample opportunity to inspect the watch before purchase.
I don't think that's a get out for a seller not clarifying parts are not genuine.
Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk
All things considered I hope your stepdad isn’t beating himself up over this too, it may a genuine watch but I’m not the best at spotting differences and only brought new via AD’s so far.
Comparing it with my LV on my wrist it seems to match. Have you asked to have the serial number of watch checked against what is on the card? As if i’m not mistaken the serial number is within the Crystal by the 5 & 7 markers
If I bought a watch this way I would expect no sympathy and take any criticism as deserved.
Pay at least some of the price by credit card and always get a receipt, it’s not rocket science.
Saying that I hope it’s genuine,but if they won’t give you a receipt I would ask myself why?
The best thing to do is to send it to HM and accept his kind offer to check it out.
You mean under the glass....but not on a P-serial watch it wasn't
Honestly I would name and shame any seller/trader/dealer who sells goods and refuses to provide a receipt. Sure indicator of both dodgy business practices and potential fraud.
Did they give a reason for refusing the receipt?
Do they have a web site? Be interested to see how they sell other watches in terms of the T&Cs of sale.
Personally I'd be phoning the bank, saying the watch is not fit for purpose and that the seller refuses to refund, exchange or even provide confirmation of sale, and demand they take action on your bahalf.
Then I'd be phoning trading standards with both barrels loaded...
Thank you, I had a brain fart moment at work. But yes, I have to admit I don’t know much about the 5 digit watchesYou mean under the glass....but not on a P-serial watch it wasn't
After HM has had a look at it if it appears that it is a fake or not as described.
If the store continues to mess him about report it to the Police and Trading Standards.
Oh no, that's pretty frustrating for you and your family. I must admit I myself almost bought a two tone 5 digit sub from a smaller independant in Lincolnshire....right up until they produced all the supposedly original packaging including no original Rolex warranty card and instead a 'Certified authentic by our watchmaker' credit card instead. They seemed offended when I backed out.
Never understood why people wouldn't keep their original warranty papers on such a signifigant purchase. I can understand losing/throwing away boxes (just), but the papers? Nah.
Hope you get it sorted though.
I think Burnside was saying 'if' it turns out to be false, not that it it's been proven yet?
Still hope I guess :)
And we still don't know who the dealer is?
Doh! I missed the IF part. Yes let's just hope it's not a fake.
Are we taking morally or legally here?
Both to be honest. I think a business is obliged to accurately describe any item that has been significantly modified to the detriment of its value.
Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk
There is always a possibility of it being given to someone as a gift, straight of the wrist as it were.... Also what about all the Rolexes that are supposedly worn as "currency" that can get you out of a fix in some foreign land... your hardly going to be carrying the full set, box & papers with you, are you?
Valid point I guess. Tom cruise didn't hand in his papers when he pawned his rollie in Vegas to count cards for Rainman. Showing my age now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote