Reply With QuoteYou haven’t got a leg to stand on.
Cheers
Rory
I bet lots of people leave an AD with a nice new watch having not checked the serial number against the papers. They could then wear the cuckoo watch for years only to discover its true status perhaps years later when it fails or goes for service. Then what?Originally Posted by Raffe
You haven’t got a leg to stand on.
Cheers
Rory
Anybody who spends 10k on a watch without checking the serial number needs their head examined.
There are plenty of people who do stupid things, they will have to accept responsibility for their actions (or non-actions). It's as simple as that.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Although a cross check between watch and warranty card would be normal. How would an AD react if you started asking to check the watch you received was the intended one from the manufacturer?
Cheers
Rory
I recently bought a lovely 16700 from a forum stalwart. Can I now pay 5% of the purchase price, say £425, to ensure (insure) it is not a fake?
If you can find someone you trust (and all the staff involved) that offers the service then I guess so. Let’s face it we could all take paranoia to extreme levels and end up trusting no one - that would be a pretty horrible world to live in though.
Cheers
Rory
FWIW when buying from an AD I always check the watch to the card to the tag etc.
Docs are kept in packs and separate from watches and boxes. It's easy enough to mismatch the two although I have always seen the AD check as if it does happen they will be left with a watch with the wrong docs... I guess it could be resolved by Rolex, but I'm sure the principle will be not best pleased.
I wonder if someone who is very good at sleight of hand saw a watch in a jewellers window, went in with a fake copy of exactly the same watch would the assistant check the serial number after the customer has handed the watch back.
When I bought my wife’s second hand Cartier from a local hop I checked the serial number against the paperwork before paying for it
I don’t think you’ve implied anything, just that you acknowledge it’s existance - like it or not.
You can keep spinning it, just as I have in the modified scenario, but the OP didn’t say it was ok.
You're continuing to troll Rory IMHO, I think he's made his meaning quite clear. I for one read his first post that you're "quoting" and understood his meaning.
There's no shortage of those types in this world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47201923
Last edited by ChromeJob; 13th February 2019 at 20:39. Reason: adding reply
Yeah I am one , it’s never once occurred to me to cross reference a new watch bought from an authorised dealer.
I suspect I am in the majority .
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I also understood Rory first time .
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Agreed.
Oh no... That's exactly what I did last week. But... It was the only model of that watch they had delivered, and I'll make sure that I check the serial against the warranty serials tonight :)
It's just a matter of time...
Entirely possible - especially if they were ‘plausible’.
lots of examples of jewellery/money theft on youtube using sleight of hand, so my guess is that watches in stores would suffer the same experience.
I have a 1655 purchased from AD in 1984 where the original papers don't match the serial number on the case, apparently it occurs quite often.
That happens.
I know of someone who bought a watch from a reputable major seller and the watch was fake and had obviously been swapped at some point.
They were refunded instantly.
Mitch
I purchased a used Submariner recently from a private individual. He wasn't the original owner and for some reason the warranty card was stamped but not dated.
I contacted the supplying AD who refused to give me the original purchase date because of their GDPR policy. Their advice was to contact head office.
Head office asked me to email a scan of the warranty card and promised to get back to me. When they responded, the same result. They refused to give me the original purchase date because of their GDPR policy. Their suggestion was to contact Rolex.
Rolex told me that they would not supply me any information because the manufacturing date is confidential and only the supplying dealer would know the date of sale.
Nobody was interested in the serial number for my watch because they weren't willing to provide any information at all.
Solution.
I contacted another dealer within the same group and told them I was interested in purchasing a brand new Day-Date. Whilst chatting, I asked if he could do me a little favour. 10 minutes later he phoned me back with the purchase date for my watch.
If this is how difficult it is to obtain a simple piece of information regarding a genuine watch that I actually own, what chance do we all have trying to authenticate a potential purchase?
Last edited by Wazza; 14th February 2019 at 17:52.
Surely any retailer who doesn't have the confidence or systems to prevent substitution is open to massive fraud? Dishonest Dick buys a genuine watch then two months later takes back a fake and says "you sold me this, money back please!" They would surely have investigated and tested his claim first? That is, unless they knew they had problems such as bent staff....but even then to pay out instantly without further investigation would be extraordinary. Do you have any more details?
How does information about the date of sale relate to authenticity at some later point in time, for a watch which may or may not legitimately bear the number Rolex or the AD have on record?
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 14th February 2019 at 18:04.
I agree.
My point is that the new GDPR legislation is scaring AD's not to enter into any discussion unless it's with the original purchaser.
I could have written a 2018 purchase date for a watch that was actually sold in 2012. And with the knowledge that the AD would refuse to confirm or deny the authenticity of the purchase date on the warranty card at a later date.
That would have been a good fraud if I wasn't so honest.
Last edited by Wazza; 14th February 2019 at 20:03.
Details like the style of warranty card, holder, swing-tags and boxes, or the date coding of booklets, would typically trip up your hypothetical, darker self in that specific scenario.
There’s usually a way to see what’s what, if you consider all angles.
You are the expert Haywood but not all AD's share the same level of expertise or as I found out today, willingness to be of any help at all.
You're the expert as to whether a DATED warranty card is a better assurance of the provenance of a pre-owned watch (two or more owners), but speaking only for my naive self as a hypothetical pre-owned buyer,* a warranty card that wasn't completed per the rules of Hoyle would put me back on my heels a little. If a second or later owner went to the original AD and asked for the authentic paperwork to be verified and filled in correctly, why wouldn't they? This is how IMHO ADs earn trust and loyalty, by being a haven of service and support long after the sale, regardless if you're their original customer, or a new one coming into them with a watch they sold before. In fact, this is a superb way to earn NEW customers. It's a pretty old and reliable story, me thinks.
* Listing: "Pre-owned Rolex, circa 2012, in VG condition with B&P. The papers weren't filled out properly, but we're very sure they're authentic. Trust us." Yeah, right. :-\
The behavior Wazza described would put those ADs on my short list of "never return." Would they suffer? Probably not. But word of mouth has a habit of spreading like influenza.
I'm not a GDPR expert, but knowing the month and year of a sale of a watch that I owned doesn't seem like such a violation.
Last edited by ChromeJob; 14th February 2019 at 21:20.
Were you the original buyer?
If not you are asking for personal spending information of an individual from a data controller without the data subjects consent. In certain circumstances it could well fall within their own data privacy policy (dependent on how it is written) to not provide that information.
It's just a matter of time...
Entirely plausible. But I don’t think the secondhand owner is asking for personal spending information, or even the identity of the buyer. ONLY the month and year (perhaps date) of the original sale. That’s it. I think protecting that non-personal nugget of info is overly cautious.
I’m familiar with US HIPAA regs, it’s personally identifying information that has to be protected, not generic info like “provider, date, type of service.”
The supply of fake warranty cards in its own right should be a cause of great concern to anyone buying Rolex watches at the moment.
In my opinion, most of the trade (including main agents) is hopelessly ill-prepared to spot them.
Dishonest idiots like this chap pop up steadily on places like Instagram, where they may promote their cards with effective anonymity.
Note that he is explicitly promoting the purchase of the fake cards in order to replace genuine cards that have been withheld by main agents, as with the BLNR. It is easy to see that some will be tempted to spend perhaps £30 on one of these bent cards in order to sell their watch for what might be over a thousand pounds more, if they can find a buyer who does not realise the card is fake:
Dare we imagine how many watches (real or fake) are being sold with fake warranty cards to individuals through Chrono24, eBay, Shpock or even watch fora?
As for that Watches of Switzerland receipt......yes, point of sale till receipts exactly like that are being faked as well, creating a "full package" whether with fake or genuine watch.
Cards can be ordered to the specific details required by the dishonest. Just supply the watch numbers, territory code, main agent details etc :
They'll pass the UV test which most in the trade probably didn't even know about :
If any tz-uk member of bona fides is in doubt about a warranty card, they may take good photos of front and back and send them to me. I will be happy to give an opinion and am confident that the current crop of fake cards may easily be identified, once you know what to look for. Couple of pounds to the tz-fundraiser might be nice, but entirely optional.
Haywood
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 17th February 2019 at 16:10.
And yet practically all wtbs on here want their Rolex watches as “full sets” with b&p!
Go figure.
Me thinking about posting in this thread..
Freaky..
Lol. VG.Me thinking about posting in this thread..
Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk
I don't know what to say:
Being offered by what appears to be an NAJ member in Norwich. http://www.juelslimited.co.uk/pages/...mt-master.html
Green GMT-Master text on a BLNR?
Alignment of ROLEX text on the inner rehaut at the 11 o'clock marker?
That swing-tag?
Crikey.
Apparently "All our secondhand timepieces have all been fully serviced" --- so I wonder who their watch-maker is and what he thought of the watch?
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 25th February 2019 at 11:45.
They have used the same swing tag in pictures of other watches for sale!!I don't know what to say:
Being offered by what appears to be an NAJ member in Norwich. http://www.juelslimited.co.uk/pages/...mt-master.html
Green GMT-Master text on a BLNR?
Alignment of ROLEX text on the inner rehaut at the 11 o'clock marker?
That swing-tag?
Crikey.
Apparently "All our secondhand timepieces have all been fully serviced" --- so I wonder who their watch-maker is and what he thought of the watch?
At that price, they must know it’s dodgy!
Just wow!
They do have some bargains though (!):
http://www.juelslimited.co.uk/pages/rolex-explorer.html
http://www.juelslimited.co.uk/pages/...-nautilus.html
Haha! That Explorer is apparently from September 2014. It is NOT under the five year Rolex warranty as they say, because this was not introduced until July 2015
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 25th February 2019 at 13:02.
As an industry colleague of these folk have you advised them of their predicament?Haha! That Explorer is apparently from September 2014. It is NOT under the five year Rolex warranty as they say, because this was not introduced until July 2015
“Known as the Bruiser??” :DI don't know what to say:
I have tried to call them today but they are closed.
I will continue, but if I spent my life chasing inadequate "pre-owned watch specialists"....
[ "You already bloomin' do" - Mrs. Milton ]
....there wouldn't be much time left in the day!
It is not difficult to imagine a watch such as that ending up on the wrist of an innocent buyer who had expected that he could trust a smart-looking shop. If they returned years later to complain because it had been identified as fake, would a shop accept that it was the one they had sold?
Not in all cases, I suspect......
I am aware of both this term and the now more common "Batman" designation.
In this case, of course, another term applies!
Good for you, if you can save just one punter from buying a dud you will have done a good thing.
Ah, it’s the first I’ve heard it. But I’m not a Rolex maven…
“The Loser” >:D
There’s something awfully fishy about all of this; £6k fit a BLNR, £3250 for a 39mm Explorer and under £10k for a PP Nautilus!
They’re not realistic prices these days and any watch dealer knows that!
They’re either fake, the website has been hacked or it’s a new site under construction as per Eddie’s one with sub £500 dreadnoughts for sske.
Chap at my AD calls it that, for what it’s worth.
This is from the Juels' Ltd page on Companies House:
Nature of business (SIC)
- 46770 - Wholesale of waste and scrap
Uh huh...
I pity some poor fool who gets mugged for £6k on that BLNR
Bloody hell. I just bought a 16 year old Honda Civic from my sister in law. 120k miles, bodywork sound but needs service including cambelt. £200.
Now I'm worried it might be a fake.
Disclaimer: first, I am not a Rolex hater (I'm wearing one as type this) and second I am a fake hater (i.e. a hater of fakes not a . . . oh never mind.)
HOWEVER . . . how far have Rolex brought this on themselves?
Silly games with waiting lists, randomised and therefore undatable serial numbers, etc etc.
At this point someone says "Veblen" and we all tick our Rolex Thread Bingo Cards. I'm not going to do that.
But I do wonder what it costs Rolex -- with all its economies of scale, vertical integration, years of amortisation -- to make a watch? Who knows, but it will be a small fraction of the RRP.
I'm all for making a profit but they are basically printing money.
And we queue up (literally, go on a waiting list) to get our hands on one.
Please re-read my disclaimer before shooting me.
Yes yes all very true but at the end of the day, punters are falling over themselves to buy Rolex, thus proving Rolex have got it right.
Yes, that was partly my point. Rolex have got something very, very right indeed. (I use the tern "right" here without implying any value judgement.) That it should attract counterfeiters is a corollary.
If I can create a mystique or fetishisation around a product and/or artificially restrict supply then I'm on to a winner. Rolex do both. If I then make said product for £2, sell it at £20 and it retains or even increases in value then a lot of people will be having a go at knocking off whatever it is I'm knocking out. Money is the obvious one but the principle applies to anything that fits the criteria.
In that respect a Rolex is a little like a very large banknote.
I'm no expert but it seems just from this thread that fakes are getting easier to make and much, much better. If the fakers could make 99.99% accurate copies at 10% of the value of the real thing (say, £500 for the sake of argument) then why wouldn't they? If you could make a 99.99% accurate copy -- i.e. almost undetectable, except in a specialist lab -- of a £20 note for £2 and were of a criminal persuasion then you may well. (Of course this begs the question of what "99.99% accurate" means -- I take it to mean something like "needing a full disassembly and metallurgical analysis", real forensic science stuff. Checking the hairspring material and the stainless steel case alloy composition. Things like that.) Maybe they'll never get that good, diminishing returns and all that, but who knows?
Thank you Rev-0, I like what you are saying, and I agree with your simple rationale of all the threads that have been started on this topic over the last couple of years. Simple & to the point; job done for me.
Posting Permissions
